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 -
I don’t think your explanations contradict the mod-hating of your irrespective (?) comments.
I do think your explanations contradict each other’s explanations. I expect if a post that calls people trannies and also makes the 10,000th run-of-the-mill advocacy for conservative values, @raggedy_anthem will mod it and you will not.
That’s fine, I’m not looking for perfect consistency between mods, I was just remarking that this seems like a change in direction to our moderation.
As somebody who thinks it’s mind numbingly obvious “the foundation” has only eroded since we were founded, I’m just happy there’s a mod willing to up civility standards, since I’ve long been clear that I think that’s a requirement for the foundation, since shit-flinging is detrimental to minority views.
Hmm, if memory serves, I don't think raggedy was one of the mods awake when I was discussing my warning to Astragant with the older mods, so it may well be that she might have have disagreed at the time but just didn't happen to speak up or notice.
The influx of new mods will inevitably lead to drift in moderation decisions, though I do sincerely believe that after the degree of vetting we've been through, none of us are going to make particularly divergent decisions from the expectations of the regular users/previous mod consensus.
I strongly value free speech, and have more tolerance for pejoratives/uncharitable terms for people, including my ingroup, but of course, that's not infinitely so, especially if my personal preferences would lead to a general degradation of civility on The Motte. Hence why I warned Astragant in the first place, whereas if I was still a normal user, I'd just upvote and move on.
While the mods try, quite hard I might add, to show a united front, differences in opinion are to be expected. All I'm saying is that these are bounded.
In particular, I took great pains to show why I modded Astragant, with caveats aplenty. I don't recall seeing Skulldrinker's comment before she got to it, but in all likelihood it would have tripped my moderation threshold, even if not for quite the same reasons. I am aware that putting my mod hat on means that my opinions carry some degree of official weight, including speaking for the other mods.
It depends. Unsatisfactory answer, maybe, but it's still true. I consider just the use of "tranny" not worth a rebuke, but further action depends on precisely how they went about their "conservative advocacy". I think this particular comment was inflammatory (even if I personally agree with it), and thus I support her decision. Further relevant factors include the user's standing, and how severe the punishment given is.
A warning? That's fine by me. If she had gone for a ban, I would first check if Skull had a pattern of being obnoxious (especially after being officially warned), and likely discuss the matter internally, and if the two of us still couldn't see eye to eye, I'd go with overall mod consensus instead of unilaterally reversing the decision or disputing it in public. But in the end, we have some degree of independent initiative, and we all answer to Zorba in the end.
I hope that clarifies things, and I can understand that you might put more of a premium on politeness than I do, which is fine, I certainly value it too, if not quite as much.
I completely agree that you (and most mods here) strongly value free speech. I think that explains why their moderation serves two masters, rather than the single foundation that they're supposed to serve.
If the purpose of TheMotte was to be a place where the English and the Irish can have peaceful discussions, there's no reason to let the English call the Irish "Micks". It's completely unnecessary to discuss any meaningful ideas and only serves to increase tension. If you do allow it then you are sacrificing your purported mission for some other value (e.g. free speech). If you start with 80% English and two years later you have 95% English I think it would be fair to ask why you're still letting the English call the Irish "Micks" when you say you want to encourage peaceful discussion.
Free Speech is cool. There are other communities that prioritize free speech and I have nothing against them. But in this community our purported foundation is not "Free Speech", so "I strongly value free speech" is not a valid justification for a moderation decision.
Given that our terminal value is purportedly fixed, Free Speech is merely one tool to achieve it, so I ask: how is this specific usage of Free Speech (allowing people to use slurs) helping us achieve our terminal value?
I feel like your thought experiment is overly simplistic.
The members of the Motte consist of dozens of overlapping in-and-out groups. There are some sections of society, most notable the progressive liberals in the US, who take umbrage with any effort to define them and their ideology with a single moniker. Think of how Woke went from an ingroup identifier, to a pejorative. Or how they fought a battle to declaim being Social Justice Warriors, which was an acceptable if hyperbolic term once. Or the claims that CRT doesn't exist, or can't be defined, though their ideological opponents can easily point to relatively well defined behaviors that it constitutes and legislate against it.
At the end of the day, people don't even agree on what can be a slur. And others attempt to chill the debate to the freezing point with linguistic prescriptivism, including by making entirely benign words suddenly gain negative connotation overnight.
Since some can and will abuse their control over language to make certain classes of discussion unacceptable (look at why we left Reddit in the first place), I am strongly against letting that process take root here. That is entirely in keeping with the Foundation, given that some demand policing of language to the degree that other groups are forced away. It's all about striking a balance.
When avoiding a derogatory term makes discussion more difficult you will have a leg to stand on. “Tranny” doesn’t, yet you insist on sheltering under free speech.
So I ask: how is this specific usage of Free Speech (allowing people to say “tranny”) helping us achieve our terminal value?
Yes, it takes judgement to decide what speech to allow. But here’s a simple heuristic:
If a word drives some people away and is unnecessary for communicating ideas, then modding its usage helps one aspect of the foundation and doesn’t hurt the other.
“Tranny” drives away certain perspectives and makes no ideas easier to communicate. So how is allowing it helping achieve the foundation?
It is a regrettable aspect of modernity that people can and will take umbrage to just about any word, and we had to come up with the Euphemism Treadmill to describe the process occurring so rapidly that people with good intentions who aren't precisely up to date with what's in vogue, are left bemused when attacked for using what they remember as a benign term. "Wait, I thought they wanted us to call them Negroes?" A bemused old lady says as she's heckled outside a grocery story. "But what do you mean, Colored People is bad? Isn't that the same thing as People of Color??" A confused activist says as he's actively being canceled.
It is not a myth that some people object to the use of the word "mother" instead of "birthing person", or the word "retard" instead of "mentally handicapped" (and wouldn't you know it, some people even find the latter or merely "disabled" bad), even if you call someone with clinically diagnosed mental retardation a retard instead of trying to imply your opponents are so.
My rebuttal is that such a level of word and tone-policing also drives away people who prefer free speech, or at least those who are dismayed by the Treadmill sweeping them off their feet. It is not a costless tradeoff as you imply.
Tranny might well be offensive to the majority of forum users (I don't think so, but it certainly is to a large fraction). It is, however, a word that can be applied precisely to the same set of people who can be more politely called trans or transfolk. I resent every linguistic imposition placed on me, regardless of whether I want to use the term, and as you can see, there are plenty of people who wish to use it. Trans people are also, despite their overrepresentation in online discourse, a very small minority in absolute terms.
But I am not interested in litigating every word anyone can potentially object to, because there are thousands of them. The matter has been internally discussed within the mod team, and so far, the closest we have to a consensus is:
This is not an official rule because it isn't an official rule. If explicit moderation guidelines emerge that rule out anything that a relatively well-defined set of the mods or users consider a slur, no matter the rest of the comment, I will enforce it in my remit as a mod. Until then, you are welcome to advocate for your stance, to the extent that I have some leeway to interpret the Foundation, I happen to disagree and will personally not moderate on that basis alone until the mod consensus says I should. Or we have a formal rule to that effect.
*formulated by the ever-eloquent @FCfromSSC, and personally endorsed by at least me and @raggedyanthem, but as I stress, not a binding declaration or even outright consensus.
It's not costless, but is absolutely a requirement for hosting a space with diverse viewpoints that people treat each other politely. It's a contradiction to want a place with diverse viewpoints, but also a place that wants to accommodate Englishmen who just can't help themselves when they see an Irishman.
What's your assessment of the word "Homophobe"?
Bad word. "Doesn't like gay people" communicates the exact same thing but with less heat.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link