site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   28072 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 2023

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm in favor of the ban and think way more banning should be done in general. I think way too many people treat warnings and bans like it's a fee they get to pay in exchange for getting to be rude to someone they disagree with. They know exactly what they're doing - they know it's against the rules when they submit their comment. They just don't care. They think the other guy deserves it, so they'll pay the ban tax and take a day off.

This is pretty close to my views on the subject. Out of all the active moderators I think I am usually the one that is most in favor of more bans, longer bans, and fewer warnings.

There are some people that try to follow the rules, if they get a warning they will correct and be more careful in the future. We have plenty of accounts with just one or two warnings, and then otherwise great behavior.

There are others that seem closer to what you describe, they will happily pay the ban tax (or evade it altogether through alts), and then come back and make trouble again. For all I know I might've been banning the same 5-10 people for my last decade of moderation.

When I see accounts with nine mod notes about bad behavior I feel like I know which category they fall into.

I think most of these people would bite their tongue if there were real, significant consequences.

This part I disagree with, from experience what happens is those people become crusaders for "the mods are terrible/evil oppressors". They just turn most of their rudeness on us, and put us in the position of having to ban people for attacking the moderators. Making us look like petty dictators.

Speaking of consequences, I am curious if the people against a ban would be willing to suffer any consequences for the behavior of BurdensomeCount. @TheDag @some @bolido_sentimental

Treat this fully as a hypothetical, but what if the next time BurdensomeCount got banned, you also received a one day ban? Would it still be worth it to keep them around?

I ask, because for the moderators there are consequences to keeping around troublesome users. This interaction takes up my time and energy. And for every mod action on a user, there are usually about 5 posts from that same user that were on the edge and we let slide. When I go through the mod queue I usually try and carefully read posts and their context. This is all work I've volunteered for, but I also don't have unlimited time in my day.

Treat this fully as a hypothetical, but what if the next time BurdensomeCount got banned, you also received a one day ban? Would it still be worth it to keep them around?

What if the next time the police searched a home without a warrant, and caught a criminal who they sent to jail, you got sent to jail too? Would it still be worth it to insist that the police need warrants to do a search?

(I don't actually think a ban for BurdensomeCount is a bad idea. But I'm very leery of the general principle that you're expressing here.)

For them it would just be imagine that you paid their salary, and you already do. The cost of the police wasting time and money is partly accounted for. Also if you make a false police call they can fine you. There are lots of consequences for wasting police time. There are no consequences for wasting volunteer mod time.

The cost of not allowing warrantless searches is that sometimes you fail to catch a criminal that you might have caught with a warrantless search, not just that you might have to waste the police's time getting a warrant.

The police analogy doesn't fit very well. These "crimes" are committed in the open.

"fail to catch a criminal" = "fail to ban someone immediately".

Again, just a bad analogy. Unlike police I don't care if someone gets away with a "crime" here. We let people get away all the time. I'm not here to punish. I'm here to cleanup. If you make a small mess and clean it up I don't really care. If you constantly crap everywhere then you make my job harder and I want to get rid of you. People call us jannies, not some imitation of police.

The point of the analogy is that not banning people arbitrarily will of course make it harder to ban, but that doesn't mean that people should be banned arbitrarily, and it certainly doesn't mean that anyone who opposes arbitrary bans should be responsible for the fact that that makes it harder to ban people.

Treat this fully as a hypothetical, but what if the next time BurdensomeCount got banned, you also received a one day ban? Would it still be worth it to keep them around?

I would be totally fine with this. Heck, even a one-week ban I'd be okay with. Part of that though is my personal feeling that I spend a bit too much time here, and could stand to bow out a bit more so take it with a grain of salt.

With regards to Count, not sure how to articulate my feelings but I much prefer his sort of snobby disdain to other posters here who I won't name. I don't see the mod queue and I get that if someone is a repeat offender it's problematic, but I am far, far more concerned by all the people here who regularly call for violence and talk about how violence is the only true right man has and how the only method for change is to purge your enemies with a sword. That's the most concerning rhetoric to me, even if they say it nicely.

I know this goes against the whole ethos of the Motte in that you can say anything as long as you say it the right way and play nice, so perhaps I'm biased and don't necessarily agree with the rules 100%. I'm glad I'm not a mod - I doubt I could be impartial enough.

Anyway, not sure if this adds much to the discussion and I generally support the mods so if you think he deserves a permaban, I won't go on an anti-mod crusade. Just figured I would weigh in.

I find this a fascinating question. It represents a very different cost for each of us. For me, even though I've been around since the original SSC CW thread, I've always been a very low-volume poster. As a result, I'd barely notice being banned, whereas it would probably be significantly impactful for the people you mentioned. Such a system wouldn't bother me. I'd eat a life ban for Ilforte or @TheDag or somebody, honestly, if it worked like that.

I recognize what you're saying, though, and I don't mean to minimize the costs imposed by misbehavior. Certainly repeat offenders should be penalized, and I don't disagree with your decision to ban BC for a while. From my perspective, though, as someone who is usually here with the intention of reading The Motte rather than digging in to the Culture War with my own hands, it's better to have someone like BurdensomeCount around rather than not. This is because while he does break the rules, I admit that, he also has a reasonably good chance of saying something that makes me think about things differently. That's what I'm here for, and that's why I felt like standing up for him. But of course - it's not all about me, by any means. Indeed I think it's probably more important to make mod decisions with the contributors in mind, not the readers. So I get it.

Treat this fully as a hypothetical, but what if the next time BurdensomeCount got banned, you also received a one day ban? Would it still be worth it to keep them around?

I agree to this.

Its even crazier to me that you would say this, you've blocked them for crying out loud. That is the biggest acknowledgement I can think of that someone is not worth dealing with. If everyone did what you did towards BurdensomeCount it would be the same as me banning them.

If everyone blocked him, he could still reply and if other posters sometimes browsed while logged out, his opinions would still be noted.

I read this, felt immense respect for them upholding the ideals of The Motte in a way I probably couldn't, then realized I was also blocked by them

That's a roller coaster of emotion.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats