site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   26387 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 3, 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.

I think the thing is that these people do mostly share some distorted version of my values in the way that the Nazis don't. The Nazis tried to exterminate a people that they thought were vermin while invading their neighbors in a war of aggression.

I think we should exterminate vermin, and you probably do too. So Nazis do share a distorted version of our values. Of course, we don't think humans qualify as vermin, and Nazis do think that, but that's what makes it distorted--it's still a version.

This feels like quite a stretch. Maybe it's just the time I've spent among the progressives in my life but I know the type of people who, through blinding empathy, advocate for things like the WPATH guidelines.

There are certainly leftists who resent, hate and advocate for violence against people that I can see as analogous to nazis, as there are rightest for whom the comparison would be taken as high praise. So I don't think I'm just incapable of comparing modern people to nazis.

Rather than thinking of the consequences would you rather live with empathetic but misguided people or slightly more correct, with their own wrongness, people who advocate for and are willing to partake in violence against their out group?

Consequentialism in a moralish society has this quirk where straightforwardly evil people can't get public support and thus can't do much harm and thus rank low on consequential harm measures. While moral empathetic people can get lots of support and thus can cause lots of, inadvertent, harm and thus can score high on harm measures. This is a dynamic to look out for and we should always be critical and careful with those we entrust with great power. But it seems a horrible mistake to conclude that the moral empathetic people are as bad as the straightforwardly evil people on these grounds. It really matters that if we entrusted other groups with the power that the progressives are entrusted with that things would be much worse and they should get some reasonable credit for that. Not absolution, not a free pass, but they're not nazis.

What are you talking about? You seemed to have missed the part "of course, we don't think humans qualify as vermin".

You and Nazis both think you should exterminate vermin. You don't think humans are vermin and Nazis do. So the Nazis have a distorted version of the same values as you.

I understand "can humans be vermin" sounds like it could be on the 'IS' side of the Is/ought distinction but I think it's actually on the 'ought' side. I don't think "is there such a thing as an internal gender experience such that it can be out of alignment with a person's sex" is on the is side. I believe this because I think there is some amount of proof that could sway me into believing that gender as an innate felt experience is real while there is no proof that would cause me to believe that some humans are vermin.

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