This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
When a moderator says to you:
And not even a day later you again repost identitarian bait, with minimal commentary, as a top-level post, I have to assume you have opted to ignore the warning.
I want to emphasize: in absolute terms, this post is "not bad." It's not great, it does challenge both "speak plainly" and "avoid low-effort participation," as well as "make your point reasonably clear and plain" (though this post is in that regard maybe a slight improvement on the last one). That it does those things as a top level post is an aggravating factor. The CW thread is not a dumping ground for posts other people have written on topics that are maximally inflammatory. It's a place to test your thinking, which to a great extent demands that you do some thinking in an open and public way. Gradually accruing the annoyance of the sub by being a one-note piano while evading effortful engagement with others is, if nothing else, egregiously obnoxious.
So let's start the banning at 48 hours.
Maybe my reading comprehension is trash, but how is “I'd like to push back against the contention that Jewish overrepresentation among leftist movements is related to activists being Jewish per se” not speaking plainly?
The idea that some people (eg @Fruck) have suggested is that this poster is claiming to be against antisemitism while also thinly-veiled hmmposting links to internet antisemitism in a way that encourages users to click on them and to conclude from them that the post was ‘wrong’ and the far-right position on the issue ‘right’.
This is a relatively complex form of baiting and a violation of the ‘speak plainly’ rule, although it’s not uncommon online. Still, I’m ambivalent on a ban unless the mods have better proof the poster is trolling or being sneaky.
The ban is short, and very much intended to communicate that Amadan's warning should not have been ignored in this way.
We don't like anyone doing top-level posting that is overwhelmingly copy-pasted, even when it's not on a maximally-inflammatory topic, but we also don't want to over-moderate, so when it happens occasionally, or comes from otherwise-well-reputed users, it's kinda whatever. But when one user does it repeatedly, in combination with other kinda-shady behaviors, and immediately after being warned against it, like--what else am I supposed to do?
I'm not necessarily criticizing this ban, but what's the justification behind this? Why does it matter if something insightful came from a user here or from an outside thinker (assuming the poster agrees with what they're sharing)?
Is the idea that this is a way to prevent spamming, by raising the required time commitment to make a top-level post?
It's bound up in a long history of wrangling with "bare links" and otherwise low-effort content. At the extreme, a user could sock-puppet as a way of skirting the rules of engagement. Like, suppose you write a really scathing takedown of your outgroup. Post it here, maybe you get moderated. Post it on Substack and then share it here, though, maybe you don't, depending on how transparent your effort to circumvent the rules of engagement is.
This is not a common problem, by the by, but it is definitely something that has happened in the past. And the foundation of the whole enterprise is that we're here to discuss things, to test our own shady thinking in a community of people who don't all agree with our views. "Here's a thing for you all to discuss" is not quite the same thing as actually participating in a discussion, and can very easily be trolling/bait/etc. So copy-pasting large chunks of text while providing minimal insight of your own doesn't really reach the necessary level. If someone outside the sub says something insightful, sharing it here is fine--even as a top post, if it's not CW. But if it's a picture, or video, or Culture War material, then we are looking for submission statements and effortful engagement.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link