site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   23859 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 10, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sexless men fall into the Oppressor side of the Oppressed/Oppressor dichotomy for reasons I cannot fathom. Criminals, depending upon their ethnicity or upbringing, usually receive some form sympathy along the lines of it not being their fault or that society caused them to behave as they do.

Sexless men fall into the Oppressor side of the Oppressed/Oppressor dichotomy for reasons I cannot fathom.

Well, not with mistake theory, you can't.

Beyond the obvious reason, dealing with the problems sexless men cause means having to give men-at-large concessions to motivate them to deal with that problem (that women aren't magically entitled to male labor is merely a specific example of what "oppression" means in conflict theory). Thus, even though they might not be oppressing women directly, their second-order effects cause women to be oppressed- because if they fail to motivate men-at-large to defend them then they'll quickly find themselves paying the sexless men with sex: either way, the paying, the obligation to, is the oppression.

Criminals, depending upon their ethnicity or upbringing, usually receive some form sympathy along the lines of it not being their fault

I think this is called "choosing the bear".

Oh no, I am fully aware that conflict theory is real and this is all motivated by an subconcious or actively concious belief that Men Bad, I just want these people to explain their logic.

If you were making a statement about the woke framework, where oppression is commonly used, then I think you meant to say that sexless men (like all men without redeeming features like being part of a minority) are considered oppressors.

I think the reason for that is that woke narratives are generally very simple monochrome narratives. If women are the good guys, then men have to be the bad guys.

Of course, just like the near east conflict is more complex than "evil Israelis are oppressing the Palestinians", the relationship between men and women in a society is also more complex than just one side oppressing the other side. It is more likely an inadequate equilibrium far away from the Pareto frontier.

ITYM Sexless men fall into the Oppressor (bad) side of the dichotomy.

I mean it isn't their fault, if you were them down to their genome and environment then you would be a criminal too.

“There but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford”

Some people get the doubt of a difficult upbringing, others get told to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

you know about the bootstrap thing, right?

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