site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   35889 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 3, 2022

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.

24
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I mean, your metaphor is more than fair to the Kremlin perspective, but it still has Russia in the wrong. Even if I have your cousin in a long-term rental contract, and I harass him, and I siphon your electricity, and I'm about to invite my ex-con gun nut friend, you are still not justified in blowing up my house. Especially not if you are going to do it with me still inside it. If you decided to do so, it wouldn't be unprovoked in the strict sense, but you would still be acting wildly out of proportion to the actual offense.

While scary, the metaphorical neighborhood spat is not a situation that justifies violent self-defense. On the other hand, if I see you entering my property with the bomb on you back, I'm quite justified to shoot you in defense (at least according to Rittenhouse morals). And if I shoot you from inside the house as you bring your bomb with intent to blow both house and me to smithereens, it's a clear-cut case of self defense.

Instead, you could maybe spend a small percentage of the money you would spend on the bomb and use it to get your cousin out of the situation. You can also negotiate with all your other friendly neighbors for your electric cable, they all liked you and would be happy to host it (before you did the bomb plan, now they don't trust you for obvious reasons). The ex-con gun nut you can't stop, but he's already hanging out at all your other neighbors anyway. And he might actually be quite friendly once you get to know him. (Also maybe you guys could re-negotiate the deal you used to have* about not having the worst kinds of intermediate-range guns laying around?)

*until you broke it.

But it's all just metaphors.

I don't think the entire "house" class of metaphors really lends itself well to describing the situation at hand in a natural way, because the "cousin" was really subjected to rather more than mere harassment. What would you model this as? Torture? A "pizzagate" scenario? Having some fingers chopped off because "your house, your rules"?

That aside, I don't think it's particularly under dispute that the decision to invade was out of proportion to what Ukraine did before it. It's just that the back-and-forth preceding it was not exactly proportional either. How do you determine which party is in the right (if you have to, as the Western public does, side with one of them at all) in an escalatory spiral? Do you look at higher derivatives of response intensity?

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