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 -
How many of the participants in the culture war understand that they're memetic agents? For instance, a social justice warrior doesn't necessarily think of themselves as a pawn of a multidimensional space ideology, emitting memes and discarded by the movement once no longer useful to the prospiracy. Instead they simply think of their morality and righteousness as an objective truth.
Similarly people who express and articulate the desire for an ethnostate are convinced of the righteousness of their position.
The culture war is as much a commentary on whose righteousness can be expressed as much as it is a contest over the definition of righteousness.
(The correct answer isn't that none of them are righteous.)
(It's that righteous causes like trans acceptance are not made less righteous by the fallibity of the people who express trans acceptance, and foul causes like the ethnostates are in fact foul and should be neatly excerpted from discourse by moderator attention, or, barring that, bullying to make sure the nerds to get the message.)
I hit "Approve" on this post with reluctance, because I suspect that you really are Impassionata, which means if past history is any indication, you will be as unreasonable as ever until we ban you. But sure, argue for the umpteenth time that we should draw a circle around those causes that are righteous and those that are not and that we should ban the unrighteous. The answer is going to be the same, for the umpteenth time: no. And your persistence in coming here (assuming you are Impassionata) to argue this again, already knowing we're going to say no and you're not going to get your way, just baffles me. I guess it must give you some sense of self satisfaction thinking you are fighting for the cause of righteousness and that you didn't let all those Bad People go unchallenged, but really, almost everywhere else on the Internet operates according to the principles you espouse. Let's say we are a hive of fascist scum and villainy - does it really make you lose sleep at night knowing this place exists? If you are afraid that some gullible nerds might be lured to the Dark Side by those clever ethnostatists, do you think that "bullying" them until we ban you will save anyone?
I am very reasonable.
The people you ban are those you have decided are unrighteous. It's not that complicated.
I'm here to begin discourse. I don't think there's as much outright fascist scum here as there used to be. I don't personally lose sleep at night knowing this place exists.
Of the two of us, I'm not sure who needs to worry about being banned more.
Most unreasonable people think they are very reasonable.
No, we ban people for being uncivil. Not the same thing.
This makes no sense.
This is why you need to worry: you believe that the label you put on the action matters. Civility is how this community has chosen to define righteousness. No community which exiles its members lacks a concept of righteousness. The behaviors that lead a community to exile a member are precisely those which are not righteous, and it's as simple as that.
Fine, if relabeling it matters to you. We ban people for being unrighteous (uncivil). So don't be unrighteous.
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