site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   37971 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 8, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

To go full Draconian here, I’m tempted to think a full South East Asia-style zero tolerance policy for opiate drugs might work here. Anyone caught with anything other than tiny amounts of Fent or H or Tranq just gets fast-tracked for lethal injection. And the police would actively go looking for anyone slinging.

It would produce horrible optics and questionable outcomes for six months, but I think it would dramatically reduce the number of ruined lives, and even the net deaths (including those executed). The present situation is a classic worst-of-both-world scenario where we tolerate antisocial and dysfunctional behaviour and also have no serious social technologies in place (like family shame networks) to rescue people from its effects.

produce horrible optics

This might be an understatement. I foresee the left quickly labeling the policy as "narcophobic" and proclaiming that we are genociding the drug users. I would even venture as far as saying that it's impossible to implement this policy in the first-world countries.

The Dumb Left might not do that, but the Smart Left and Middle would just run ads in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and even other parts of Appalachia about how Republican's who take money from rich people who own the drug companies that got people hooked on Oxy now want to put your brother, daughters, and cousins to death for getting addicted.

Remember, drug addiction isn't a minority issue anymore, it's a poor people issue, including poor white people, whom the actual reactionary base may not like, but they are still the voting base, and while poor and working class white people may have issues with their relatives who have got addicted to fetanyl, they don't want them put to death.

Singapore is a first world country with a mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, with drug trafficking so defined as it can be proven by possession.

One of many wonderful things about Singapore.

Not at all coincidentally, their rates of drug use are very low. Which is a pretty solid demonstration that drug prohibition can indeed work if you're serious about it.

Exactly. The homeless problem in Australia has expanded, but generally the times I feel any real intrusion from a homeless person is when they're clearly impaired by some sort of substance and thereby considerably more likely to perform random violence. The Summer of Love was lovely, but why in this Fentanyl-infused era do we need to continue tolerating it?

Geography matters.

Why invent something new when you just call it racist?

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