site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   23799 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 17, 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 know you've argued this before, and I have responded similarly, but worth pointing out again: as I read early American history, it is surprising how very similar the political and culture war conflicts of the late 18th and early 19th century were, complete with widespread mistrust of institutions, those who clung to the Constitution vs. those who considered it a dead letter if not a weapon against them, and the careful balancing act the Supreme Court performed. The Court has always been aware that its legitimacy rested on the public's perception and politicians' acceptance of it, and on not attempting to issue rulings it knew would be ignored.

There have been many crises threatening the legitimacy of the Supreme Court before, from Andrew Jackson's "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" (which is probably an apocryphal quote, but was pretty close to Jackson's actual response to the Cherokee Indian case) to FDR's attempt to pack the court.

It's survived and persisted this long, but that's not to say your prediction is wrong - after all, we did trudge down the slow and inexorable road to civil war once before. However, I am not convinced that the conflict is as baked in as it was in the 19th century.

However, I am not convinced that the conflict is as baked in as it was in the 19th century.

Notably, slavery was a bit more existential to 19th century americans than abortion is to 20th century ones.

Notably, slavery was a bit more existential to 19th century americans than abortion is to 20th century ones.

Abortion seems to have been pretty existential to the nearly 1 million Americans who were aborted last year, as they no longer exist. Who do you think had a higher mortality rate, 20th-Century aborted babies or 19th-Century slaves?

Fetuses aren't Americans, any more than chickens are Americans.

I meant existential to people who get a say. Abortion is a terrible tragedy but unborn babies don’t get a say in society, even in places like Texas, Malta, Poland, etc.

Now you've got me wondering about all the crazy ways an "abortion is illegal after X time, but pregnant women get two votes after X time" scheme could go wrong.

A few pro-life states have decided to give pregnant women the right to use the HOV lane.

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