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 -
Top level mod comment directed at multiple people.
First, @foreverlurker. I think you're a troll and after conferring with @ZorbaTHut, you are banned for repeatedly posting things that pattern match to "Bad faith sockpuppet who ignores warnings and repeatedly does the same thing as soon as the last ban ends."
Besides being trollish, it had the desired effects of a trollpost, which is to induce multiple people (including @FistfullOfCrows, @grognard, and @FarNearEverywhere) to post shitty responses and subresponses. I'd mod you all, but if anything my mod note would be something like "Stop taking the bait and letting a troll get you to play Let's You And Him Fight." So consider yourselves to have gotten a pass on this one, but consider not letting a troll jerk your strings next time.
And to everyone who's going to say "But it started an interesting discussion!" Yeah, and someone could (and has) start an interesting discussion with an unhinged unambiguously culture warring rant, but "Anything that gets people to talk" is not the criterion for a good post.
Aren't we missing out on a lot of interesting conversations as a result though? Banning forever is fine (OP is an undeniable bait post), but in general I think a lower effort-level for toplevel posts would be good. I think we'd have interesting discussion, at the time, over this or this or a dozen other things I've seen over the past month, but obviously I haven't made such posts.
I personally quite like the standard of "if you're going to bring up a controversial topic it should be because you personally care about and have a well-thought-out stance on the topic, and you are willing to either defend your stance or change your mind".
I don't think it even needs to rise to that level - I would settle for, "I have not considered this thoroughly, but I think this article makes an interesting, provocative point, and I'd like to engage the community on it" if it's actually in good faith. The well-thought-out stance part is optional, but honesty is required.
If you think the point is interesting or provocative, there's probably a reason you think that, and I think comments where the poster explains their interest and take are better.
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