site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   38806 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 15, 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.

Simple explanation: clickbait listicle is clickbait listicle. They're optimizing for attention, not accuracy. This is an American publication with a primarily American audience. They're incentivized to prioritize names the median American would recognize. I haven't looked through the whole list in detail, but I imagine sports that are bigger worldwide than in the US (e.g., soccer, cricket, rugby) will be underrepresented while something like the NFL might be overrepresented.

Also, side note hot-take since I don't get to talk tennis much: I'd take Federer over Djokovic. Djokovic has the bigger resume, but he's a lot luckier on his age timing. I don't think 2011-2016 Djokovic would have been as dominant as Federer was in 2004-2009 (e.g., I highly doubt he goes 8-0 vs Roddick at hard/grass slams). I also think 2004-2009 Federer would have done better than Djokovic did in 2011-2016 (e.g., he'd go way better than 4-4 vs Wawrinka at hard/clay slams). Late career (post 30s) they'd probably have similar results as each other if age adjusted.

The field when Federer was early prime was very weak. I would certainly say that Alcaraz, Sinner, and Medvedev are all better than any guy during the time you referenced (excluding Fed and clay Nadal). And a 36 y/o Novak won 3/4 against the three I mentioned last year plus ATP finals and some masters.

I think Andy Murray and Stan were much better than Roddick and Hewitt.

Don’t know if there are analytics to back it up, but at least as a meme there’s pretty much compass unity among Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and other fans that Stannis the Mannis has achieved some of the highest single-tournament peaks.

Wawrinka does catch some hate from time to time from Reddit types for banging then 19-year-old Donna Vekic when he was 30, shortly after divorcing his wife. She was only 19, that sick fuck.

For unrelated reasons, Kyrgios hilariously shit-talked to him during a match that The Kokk hit it first: “Kokkinakis banged your girlfriend. Sorry to tell you that, mate.”

Which of course was/is another massive source of seethe for those who espouse that a woman’s Wonderfulness is not compromised by number of cocks or Kokks taken.

You can be rich and one of the most esteemed tennis players of all time, and still get intertemporally cucked by your girl’s past thottery. Even by 19 she’s likely had some mileage.

I would say the biggest difference is Novak was able to develop and expand his game. Fed never really solved the ball going high to his backhand.

You are pointing to Novak 2011-15 but that isn’t his only insane peak.

I think again wildly overstating the talent level early 2000s. Elo seems to prove that out.

I think you are also wildly understating Novak’s serve and volley (go back and look at his US open against Meddy last year). Also Novak’s forehand every day against Fed. Fed’s was more explosive. But Novak has better placement and is more consistent. Fed’s will hit more winners; Novak’s will win more points.

Then of course you get into fitness levels and intangibles (eg mental toughness).

Finally looking at the stats, it isn’t like they were kind of close. Novak blows Federer out of the water and it isn’t that close. Masters, slams, variety of slams, weeks at No 1, ATP finals, YE finals, etc etc.

I dont really follow tennis, but i do have a thing for sports analysis so if you did feel like doing a deep dive id be interested in reading it.

As long as we can all agree: both are easily above Nadal.

No disagreements here. To me, he's always been on a lower tier than the other two.

Dominating clay is a stupid gimmick.

He won on grass, too. He'll always have Wimbledon 2008.

Devastating loss for Federer, but a worthy sacrifice for later winning Wimbledon in 2019.

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