site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   28521 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 24, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Amphetamine salts are simple and cheap to manufacture, less than a penny per dose in an unregulated market. Yes education is competitive, what is fair about being born smart or more in control rather than taking drugs? Ritalin me that.

The sorts of people who take illegal drugs are mostly not the sort who use adderal for its performance enhancement.

I can't disagree with this statement more.

Methheads are known for deep concern with their test scores.

Those aren't the only people taking drugs - cocaine is rather famously a rich person's drug extremely popular with people in finance who absolutely abuse whatever drugs they can get for performance enhancement.

Why do you disagree with it, or on what grounds?

It seems clear to me that most people who use illegal drugs are not using them for performance enhancement, but rather using them for pleasure. If that's true, wouldn't the above statement necessarily be true as well?

I'd assume that most people who use illegal drugs don't care about violating rules if they can get away with it. This would mean they're more likely to violate rules against using performance enhancers as well as rules against recreational drugs. It's not because the pleasure drugs and the performance enhancers are similar, it's because the same kind of people use both.

That has not been my experience.

Just an FYI, AhhhTheFrench’s comment is filtered and not visible.

Wake me up when we're dealing with an unregulated market or a fairness-based reality.

We are discussing currently non-existent future states of humanity, and what it would take to get there. An unregulated fairness-based reality would be preferable, at least for me, to a gilead style oligarchy where everything is permissible for the .001% and everything is prohibited for everyone else.

I don't think 'we cannot realistically prevent the 0.001% doing things they want to do' and 'oligarchy where everything is permissible for the .001%' are equivalent, morally speaking. To take a provocative example, we cannot prevent sufficiently powerful and motivated individuals from having parties at Mr. Epstein's island, but that doesn't mean we should legalise paedophilia.

I'm more inclined to agree with you at the 1% and especially at the 10% mark, where I think hypocrisy and two-tier policing are more corrosive (because more frequent and visible) and more preventable.

I've been to epstein's island. Post conviction, on a lark with our tour guide/captain. But as you say, far below his level of depravity and privilege the double standard becomes an issue.

These drugs are long term bad for you. The true cost of long term use is not a penny per dose.

Yes I already addressed this.

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