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 -
Huh? You're talking about having to expose their voices? I don't think that really constitutes "expose their identity".
Well but keep in mind the Boston Strangler got away with it for for decades before we discovered how to use DNA to identify people. Voice identification isn't far off I'd bet, but it isn't really necessary - this isn't a court case, fancy computer programs aren't required to whip up an outrage mob to ruin your life, only plausibility is, and like Pierre said a motivated individual could do that today. So yeah they are exposing their identity in my perspective, in a way they hadn't before, but even if you think it's only a possibility why would someone roll the dice on their livelihood for a podcast argument?
There's also a possibility that some of the snow which hits my tongue was irradiated and I end up slowly consuming enough radioactive material to kill me. We don't take risk by itself as our sole factor. At the end of the day, I think the chances of someone maliciously using a voice recording from someone here is low enough that going on the podcast isn't an issue.
I think that your relatively safe opinions have stopped you from fully thinking this through. It certainly does seem unlikely at this moment that someone would use a voice recording from here against a user. But it also seemed completely ridiculous that people would lose their jobs for opinions they held 20 years ago, or go after members of your family, until it happened and now it happens all the time. The concern isn't simply this moment, it is the rest of time.
I'm not convinced that anyone who goes onto the podcast is in serious danger of losing their jobs or having their families harassed in two decades time or even further into the future. Even if they happen to be election truthers.
Yeah I gathered. How about you get ymeskhout to say your full name, address and telephone number on the next episode. Boy would my face be red then!
Man, it's a good thing Yassine isn't asking for those in the first place, huh?
Are you not allowed to do things of your own volition? Or do I maybe have a point?
We're talking about what has to be necessarily revealed on Yassine's podcast. Voice is necessary simply because people have to speak on a podcast, the information you're talking about wouldn't be necessary unless Yassine was insisting on identifying people to that level.
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