site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   27487 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

zoink 37 points 3 years ago*

I'm highly skeptical that this will lead to an equitable crack down on rioting

Give this man a prognostication medal. I enjoy looking at old threads because it becomes obvious who was trying to get at the truth vs shamelessly manipulate people.

I didnt know there were motte mods telling users "I'd put you in a concentration camp if I could"

Give this man a prognostication medal.

I'm not fishing for compliments what is the evidence you see for this being true? The aggressiveness of the prosecution of January 6th rioters, lack of action against Palestine protestors, or... ?

At the time people excusing 2020 were saying things like "let the justice system work, all those people will face charges!"
And a few years later they were all dropped except for that one guy who got time off his sentence for burning a man alive because "his heart was in the right place." Andy Ngo has been showing all the same individuals are part of the intifadah riots too, so none of them have been incapacitated or even discouraged.

Meanwhile old ladies who were wandering outside the capitol building are in their 4th year of pretrial detention.

You were spot on when everyone was insisting the response would be principled.

He said he wasn't going to ban him because he didn't want be like him and did in fact believe in the free exchange of ideas even when he held "the power". The most charitable interpretation of HlynkaCG's post was that we should tolerate everything except intolerance, and those that would call liberalism and free speech bullshit should perhaps experience what it is like to live in a society without those values, such as China, where they would not be allowed to share such views.

What a grotesque thing to say to someone! I wish I could tell lynka that since I care about Classical Liberalism (or whatever it's called, I'm not attached to that label), it's important to me that I try to persuade people of its utility and morality. And the best way to do that is by being considerate of others, both in terms of not saying cruel things to them and in terms of actually considering what they have to say.

Unless that person says that literally if the roles were reversed they would silence you, or worse. Then it is very charitable to only say they won't ban you and maybe you should think about what it would be like to live in a place that didn't have these classical liberal values.

I'm talking about how lynka said the concentration camp thing.

My reading is "you don't believe in free speech, the Chinese dissident does; if we could swap your places, you each would live under a government that matches your stated preferences."

Yes, so am I. He said Chinese re-education camp in exchange for a chinese dissident. I believe his point is that is maybe /u/2cimarafa wouldn't then end results following /u/2cimarafa's policy of silencing free speech and liberal values.

I think the other person is correct. Free speech is only protected when you feel extremely comfortable you have won. If you have an actual threat of a communists takeover or pick your bad ideology I am 100% game for not allowing free speech.

There are reasons why someone would allow free speech in that scenario. Just like there are reasons why someone might follow the Geneva Convention in a war they might lose, and indeed many people and societies have.

For one thing, it would be foolish to try to persuade people and then prohibit them from trying to persuade you. And persuasion does work. People don't like persuasion because it doesn't fit with their worldview of the other side being Chaotic Evil Orcs, and for other reasons. But really, it does work on enough people that it's always worth it. A lot of people who hate persuasion are just really bad at it because they're too mired in their own ideology and all the nuance in their brain has fled.

Persuasion is too harsh a word. People get in the mindset of trying to trick people with weird arguments, and that never works in the long run. Usually not in the short run either.

I got no problem with persuasion. But if it’s going to lose I would rather pick a different strategy that can win.

If I were a Cuban pre-Castro I would move to a strategy that can win and not a debating society. With perfect foresight I would have chopped off the heads of all the communists before they started winning.

I miss HlynkaCG as a mod actually

I do not miss Hlynka as a mod, but I kind of miss him as a poster. I'm a wannabee tough guy and he's start start to wax Soldier of Fortune and I couldn't wait for a take from that perspective and then it was just meandering and the point was really bad.

By sheer effort of will and an abundance of charity, I can go hours (sometimes even days!) without telling people I'm going to put them into camps. It's encouraging when site moderators are held to the same standards as the users.

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