site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   29974 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 1, 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.

There's a difference between focusing on his "offenses" and saying "If you weren't a skeev then you wouldn't inevitably catch accusations like this."

And what can you back that statement with? As far as I can tell there's tonnes upon tonnes of sleeves that never get accused, so there's nothing inevitable about it, as well as there being people who literally haven't done anything but were accused (and I distinctly remember you joining in, in one prominent case).

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, FAFO, he fucked the leopards... Pick your meme.

Would you be saying this if he went postal and shot his accusers dead? Because the distance between a false accusation and murder doesn't seem much create than that between being a skeeev and putting in a false rape accusation.

Which prominent case are you referring to? If you're accusing me of hypocrisy or changing my position, you will have to be more specific.

I wouldn't consider Neil Gaiman going postal and shooting his accusers dead a likely or predictable consequence of being a starfucker.

My position is that he probably is guilty of, at the very least, being a skeevy old dude who's not above banging star struck young fans, but probably did nothing illegal and we should regard his accusers' claims skeptically.

Which prominent case are you referring to?

Kavanaugh. It's not really about hypocrisy or changing your mind. Just a counterexample to the claim that not engaging in this behavior makes you immune to the accusations.

Please link to the post where I asserted "If you do not engage in this behavior, you are immune to accusations."

You're not being a tad pedantic here? The point of your comments isn't to say something like "this wouldn't have happened to him, if he wasn't acting like that"?

I can link the post where you say that accusations are an inevitable result of the sort of behavior he was engaging in, which is also incorrect in my opinion, but I'm not sure what's the point of autistically debating the literal meaning of an off the cuff statement.

You're not being a tad pedantic here? The point of your comments isn't to say something like "this wouldn't have happened to him, if he wasn't acting like that"?

Russel conjugation: you are being precise, I am being pedantic. The point of my comment is indeed that this probably wouldn't have happened to him if he weren't acting like that. That's not the same as claiming that baseless accusations never happen.

I can link the post where you say that accusations are an inevitable result of the sort of behavior he was engaging in

Would it make you feel better if I bowed to your pedantism and edited the post to remove "inevitably"? I mean, you know I did not literally mean absolutely 100% of the time with zero exceptions, right?

Ok, fair enough, guess I let my 'tism get the best of me.

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