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 that post was particularly tactful. Starting right off the bat by claiming the person is being weird isn't very tactful, just the opposite. There's a good point to be made about singling out Democrats being unfair given the behavior of the other party, but that's not a tactful way to make it. This is the kind of behavior I tend to see out of people who complain about being downvoted for not fitting into the "echochamber" of this place, that, at best, they're passive aggressive in an obvious way that's harmful to the quality of the discourse, instead of taking the effort to contribute their views in a non-combative way to produce good discussion.
We might subjectively disagree over how tactful or not it is to call someone's post "weird" in this context. But the point is, I don't think 16 people downvoted that post because it called the parent post "weird". I think 16 people downvoted that post because it questioned how committed Republicans were to the principles of the anti-lockdown cause.
Posts with sharper personal insults than "weird" still manage to accumulate upvotes, if the content itself is popular enough. I already linked one. It's not that hard to find others (from multiple different users).
But these people are simply correct in many cases. In every community with reddit-style voting, posts that disagree with the consensus viewpoint are more likely to be downvoted. This is simply obvious to me based on 15+ years of watching how different internet communities behave, and my knowledge of how I personally use the voting buttons, particularly with posts that provoke a strong emotional reaction from me. I can't recall any significant counterexamples, and TheMotte is no exception.
I want to reiterate that using the vote button as an agree/disagree button isn't a bad thing. It's natural and unavoidable. The solution is to simply not have any punishment associated with a low comment score. It's already a good first step that TheMotte doesn't hide low scoring comments like reddit and HN do, and I think we should remove the rate limiting as well.
The thing that would tempt me most to downvote that (I didn't) was the following sentence:
I think there are other factors besides density and poverty: most importantly, policing.
That said, I agree with the overall thesis that people downvote for disagreement, and more than I would prefer. I would be happier with downvoting for disagreement when what is going on in someone's head is closer to "that point in that comment is wrong" than "I don't like their team."
More options
Context Copy link
I have no disagreement with your opinion on the pattern of upvotes and downvotes in this case specifically, at The Motte more generally, and in places with such systems even more generally. If anything, I'd say it is a bad thing, but it's indeed natural and unavoidable. Which is why I find complaining about it to be silly and pointless. It's like whining that the Sun rises in the east.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I didn't call anyone weird. I actually said "Kind of a weird focus on democrats in this post." and went on to explain why I thought that was the case. As opposed to this post. which is dripping with condescension and outright insults such as "Liberals exist in a world without cause and effect, and conservatives do." and has 20 upvotes to my 6 downvotes for a much milder and reasonable post that should have produced some discussion if the other party was willing.
To not accept that there is certainly a large and growing hardline conservatives only need apply culture on this form is to not see what the votes are telling you.
This post is literally a drive by insult and has 27 upvotes; 27 people thought it added to the discussion, that is what we are talking about right now...
To say that this is in any way meaningfully different from, "claiming the person [who made the post] is being weird [by making the post]" is pretty absurd in my eyes. The person who made the post is obviously the one responsible for what the post was focusing on, and you claimed that the particular focus in the post was weird. If you believe that making a post that has a weird focus isn't "being weird," then your skills at splitting hairs are greater than mine.
I also have no interest in up/downvotes in general and specifically find the idea of comparing downvotes between one's own posts and those of other people to be silly and rather narcissistic, so I won't comment on any particular comparisons.
It isn't absurd. We should be able to seperate a bad post or one that seems misdirected from the poster themselves. Not everyone is going to write a banger everytime. The post did have a bit of a weird fixation. We are supposed to be a bit objective here and perhaps have our arguments called wrong, or weird, without letting our ego's get too damaged in the process. If anything, I thought that is what this place is for.
It is nice that you don't care about upvotes and downvotes, but they do impact the discourse, especially when your posts wind up in mod que.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link