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, like the rest of the country, feel like nothing good will come of the election. However, I feel this way for a slightly different reason than your average person, and probably closer to the average Mottezian.
I actually don't really care too much who is president. Either one of them would IMO do a good enough job. I mostly care whether the president impacts my everyday life or causes nuclear war. However, though it isn't his fault directly, having Trump in charge would impact my everyday life negatively, mostly because it would fuel another 4 years of incessant leftist whining all around me, from all my friends and family, along with people starting to (erroneously, IMO) see and declare that racism and sexism is everywhere again. It'll start causing fights between me and my wife again. My workplace and all local institutions will start making statements about how they're standing up to Trump and racism. Under Biden, I have truly enjoyed some nice peace and respite from politics.
However, I find this state of affairs to be very irritating. It feels like the left, or at least the leftists in my life, are taking an infantile tactic: we better win or we'll whine and complain for 4 years. I don't respect sore losers, and moreover, I don't like the fact that there is no path forward for the right.
Scott said this back in 2016:
Scott was absolutely correct here in how it played out. But what option does this leave the non leftists with? If the Democrat wins, then the currents move left. We get leftism enshrined into law over the next 4 years, because to the victor go the spoils. If the Republican wins, then the undercurrents move left, and more and more people get radicalized towards the left.
Is there a way for the currents to move right without the undercurrents moving left? Or is Trump just uniquely bad at making that happen? I'm tempted to say that this is just the fact that Trump is a polarizing figure, but at the same time, all the leftists I know scream bloody murder whenever a Republican is in command. They were infantile under George W Bush. And though I wasn't around then, I know many people who are still salty over Reagan and act like he was the worst.
Would you consider the Right good losers?
I just posted about the antagonism in the top level post. Other people being antagonistic, is not an excuse for you to be antagonistic. You get a warning. Next person who responds to the top level trying to start something is eating a ban.
I think this is very bad moderation and the equivalence between the GP and the post you are responding to is false. This is already the case on a purely syntactic level: the OP makes an assertion, while the response asks the OP for his opinion (even if you could argue that the question is more of a "have you considered this" type than of the "I want to know the answer" one). Moreover, OP uses wording with insulting baggage ("sore loser") while the response is more neutral ("good", as opposed to bad, loser).
More generally, as I see it, prompting culture warriors who ascribe bad qualities to their outgroup to ask themselves if their ingroup is actually different in that regard is an important technique for keeping the heat of the discussion low: it promotes empathy, as one is encouraged to wonder why both sides act the same if one of them is so right while the other is so wrong, and prevents the "deathballing" dynamic where one tribe reaches a critical mass of common knowledge that everyone agrees their outgroup is worse than them and starts feeling more confident about coordinating meanness.
Finally, you noticeably did not threaten the original poster with a ban, despite the open egregiousness there. I don't know if it was intentional, and might well be a consequence of OP having been a singleton in your eyes while you spent hours dealing with separate anti-OP posts, but the way it winds up looking to anyone reading the thread top-to-bottom is blatant favouritism. The result of moderation leaning one way is that besides making some more people check out altogether, everyone who still cares about the balance of the community will try to counterbalance - i.e. go out of their way to make those perceived as receiving the moderators' favour feel a little less welcome. This means more antagonism going around. I'm trying to be charitable of your perspective here, but choosing which patterns/bandwagons to ignore and which ones not to is also a way of expressing favouritism: a moderator with opposite biases could have considered the responses to OP in isolation, while moderating OP (or any of the recurring posts in the same spirit!) with something to the effect of "next person who makes a top-level post with a sentiment amounting to 'DAE leftists are whiny bitches?' eats a ban" (and actually following up on it).
Normally, yes I like when people flip the script. But the original post had generated a lot of heat already and I was in more of a damage control mode. And OP is not republican, so it wasn't really a flip the script type moment. It was sort of just an opportunity for OP to trash another group as well.
I didn't make it explicit, but yeah if someone did a flip the script and just rewrote the OP from another perspective and posted it top level they might also eat a ban.
We do allow for mistakes here. I don't think the OP was originally intending to be as antagonistic as some of their language suggests, they just weren't being careful. Once moderators have come by and said "hey you messed up and this is too antagonistic" it is not ok for someone to then pull a "flip the script" move. Because its basically flaunting the rules and the enforcement of those rules.
Three things that make me a little more cautious to endorse your moderation here:
First, regarding your last point about ignoring moderators, I don't know that I can see it now, but how much time had elapsed between you saying that it's too antagonistic and KnotGodel's comment? Since they're right next to each other, there's probably a good chance that he didn't see, because the page wouldn't update until he reloaded? I do understand that it was not just that that resulted in the warning, though.
Second, I don't actually know whether KnotGodel was trying to be antagonistic; while it comes off a little harshly to me, that might not be intentional. I don't know.
Third, while I definitely wouldn't trust popular opinion on all moderation, in this case the vote count on your warning is genuinely pretty low.
More options
Context Copy link
I think some of us are confused by you using “antagonistic” to refer to the loaded language of “boo outgroup” from the “sore losers” and not the response itself being antagonistic against the OP himself.
(Also, a lot of us probably comment in a way we don’t necessarily see mod action trying to reset a tone shift before we pile on.)
More options
Context Copy link
I know you wrote elsewhere in the subthread that "some questions are inherently antagonistic", but this makes it seem like you consider any instance of what you call "flipping the script" to fall under that category. I think that that is wrongheaded, and in particular I really don't think that this question was "inherently antagonistic" - if it were, then surely basically every interaction here where people talk about each other's opinions rather than those of abstract people who are not part of the conversations would be inherently antagonistic, and everyone is posting on borrowed time while moderator goodwill lasts. If you want to retain that level of potential for anarcho-tyranny, you ought to put some thought into it before threatening its application.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What open egregiousness? I admitted I probably could have phrased some things better, but "leftist whiny bitches" is clearly not the sum totality of my post, and I was honestly not trying to be provocative. I actually want to discuss whether the currents/counter-currents situation leaves any actual options for non-leftists, and I think that merits discussion.
FWIW, I agree that it doesn't make sense to mod @KnotGodel's question.
The "with" in that sentence was intentional - I'd say there is ample evidence that the post contains a sentiment that could be summarised in that way, not that the sentiment is all there is to it (though I would go as far as saying that it's a central component of it). As for that ample evidence, just excerpting the sentimental terminology,
Apart from the literal references to "whining", there are also two mentions of "infantile" and ascriptions of bad sportsmanship and emotional deregulation (scream, salty, act, the babytalk in "he was the worst"), which I think is a picture it's appropriate enough to gloss as "bitchy". I don't think this is cherry-picked from a longer post describing the behaviour of leftists, either; apart maybe from the much more indirect statement you ascribe to your "workplace and all local institutions", this seems to be the totality of behaviours you ascribe to leftists in your post, and there are quotes in the collection from every longer paragraph in it.
This seems to me that you're backpedalling. Your original phrasing was
To "amount to" something means:
Therefore, by saying my post had sentiment amounting to "DAE leftists are whiny bitches?" you were not saying that my original post had that tone. You were saying that my original post was entirely equal to "DAE leftists are whiny bitches?". As I said verbatim above, that was "not the sum totality" of my post.
Furthermore, I think that saying things like:
is actually a very gentle way of putting it, and I was attempting to convey my point while still maintaining detachment. If I wanted to be less, detached, I would have phrased it as "they're being crybabies", or if I wanted to be "egregiously" inflammatory I could have even said things that were far worse.
I really don't think so - if I wanted to say that was the whole post, I would have gone for the shorter "post amounting to 'DAE(...)'".
I also really don't think that "I could've done much worse" is an argument for what you did being particularly good. That being said, I perhaps should remind you that I put the accusation in the mouth of a putative moderator who I took to be taking cjet's action with inverted polarity - given that I was against what cjet did here, it should stand to reason that I'm equally against what Bizarro cjet would have done... (not because it'd be a wrong claim about your post, but because I think that the implied collective punishment is not a good modding strategy).
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