site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   25744 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 20, 2024

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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

To what degree did the protestors' tactics of illegally barricading streets, widespread throughout the Floyd riots and a recurring prelude to tragedy, bear responsibility for the outcome?

Close to one hundred percent. The tactic is classic dilemma action, penning people into a position where they must either submit to the intimidation tactics of the mob or become violent against the mob. In either case, the mob organizers like the optics of the outcome - heads they have shut things down and flexed their might, tails and they're the poor innocent victims. No one should ever treat these tactics as "peaceful".

How should we interpret Perry's comments prior to the shooting, or Foster's for that matter?

As I wrote elsewhere:

Allow us, for a moment, to consider that everyone involved here is telling their truth to the best of their ability. Garrett Foster was a good and decent man that lovingly cared for his tragically quadriplegic fiancée. He was at these protests due to a deeply felt conviction that black people are oppressed by the police and was personally invested in the matter because the love of his life is a black woman. He carried a firearm at the protests because this is his constitutional right and he wanted to protect his ingroup from agitators. Daniel Perry was just an Uber driver trying to go about his business. He got confused because BLM protests occupy streets that one can normally drive down, he made a mistake in traffic, and found himself surrounded by protestors. The protestors were panicky because they're familiar with the widely broadcast Charlottesville story. Perry was frightened because many protests have turned violent. Foster attempted to defuse the situation and move Perry along.

If all of that were true (and I don't accept that it is, but let's run the thought experiment), this highlights why I was so goddamned angry at the people that allowed BLM riots to happen. The above all could be true and we would wind up with one good man's life ended and another good man's life ruined because these absolute donkeys running the show couldn't be bothered to stop BLM from rioting. Take away the riots and there's no need for Foster to arm up. Take away the riots and there is no plausible reason for Perry to be genuinely fearful. But no, we got tacit support from leftist mayors and governors around the country and a bunch of people died because of it. I am never, ever going to forgive these people.

Note - I don't really believe that this charitable view of the two men is accurate, but the point is that it could be and the same thing could have happened because of the context.

In explaining what I don't believe:

I don't buy that either man was basically an innocent bystander sucked into an unfortunate vortex. They could have been, but I doubt it. I think the evidence that Perry really, really hated protestors is compelling evidence that he embraced the confrontation. On the flip side, I have an extremely negative view of BLM and basically just don't believe anyone that says they're peaceful - I think all BLM marches are intimidation tactics and are only peaceful to the extent that people are effectively cowed into submission. Doing anything other than submitting will tend to result in very unpleasant outcomes. My model of these clashes is much more of communist-fascist streetfighting in the 1930s than it is sincere misunderstandings between well-meaning people. I think BLM rioters relish the fight and Perry enjoyed killing one of them.

Nonetheless, like I said, I think someone could take the maximally charitable view and have that be consistent with the known facts of this incident.

The answer to, "so now what" is to aggressively enforce laws for blocking streets, for false imprisonment, and so on. These aren't legitimate protest tactics and allowing them gets people killed. I don't care whether Perry was a cold-hearted murderer or an innocent victim of the system, the result was an entirely predictable consequence of BLM tactics that have little to do with the individuals in any specific altercation.

This is exactly why I think in the tactic of blockades must be made illegal and that law must be enforced. There’s a huge escalation in doing that, in taking over public roads because sitting in a vehicle puts people in a somewhat vulnerable position— escape is hindered by the need to first exit the vehicle, and that people naturally threatened when a crowd of people make moving their car or getting themselves out of their cars dangerous. And it’s hardly surprising that people who are trapped in a vehicle and have no way out are going to kill.

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