site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   35888 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.

re: Rand

Ron Paul made the excellent point that a border wall will keep Americans in as much as it will keep Mexicans (et al) out. A border wall is incompatible with Libertarianism because it is the obvious pre-req to restricting Americans from exiting the country. Open borders are good for me, not just for my roofer.

They rather tend to support abolishing the police in favour of delegating a large range of social functions to social workers, case workers, psychologists etc., as opposed to pure laissez-faire state-of-nature existence.

I'd say the side that thinks they need as many men with as many guns as possible patrolling the streets patting down anyone who looks suspicious are more frightened of crime and less confident in their ability to deal with it than the side that thinks you can deal with it via social workers and suchlike. That's absent a judgment on who is right, or what the correct level of fear is: when I'm scared of things I want to deal with them violently and immediately, when I'm not viscerally scared of things I talk about long term root causes.

My half-baked theory is that where one falls on the authoritarian-libertarian spectrum will be inversely proportional to one's internally perceived ability to protect oneself, so people who believe that they are very poorly equipped to protect themselves from harm will be very authoritarian, people who believe that they are very well equipped to protect themselves from harm will be very libertarian, and everyone else will be somewhere in the middle, proportional to said self-perceived ability.

Sure, but map the spectrum onto either a binary or the spectrum or left-right and it doesn't come out with "Rightists are confident self-defenders" and "Leftists are nervous weaklings." The positions on cops map more to "members of my perceived tribe should have more power." Which is my point about libertarianism: people adopt libertarian and constitutionalist talking points when their tribe is under perceived threat from the government, and ignore them when their tribe is in power. Free speech absolutists were on the left when I was growing up, they are on the right today, who knows where my kids will perceive the first amendment to be assuming insh'Allah the first amendment makes it to them.

I'd say the side that thinks they need as many men with as many guns as possible patrolling the streets patting down anyone who looks suspicious are more frightened of crime and less confident in their ability to deal with it than the side that thinks you can deal with it via social workers and suchlike.

Arming up with guns and patrolling your territory is dealing with it. I'm not afraid of criminals, but I nevertheless support putting them down violently, and making sure they can't organize.

The right is broadly more supportive of lower taxes, the right to bear personal arms, and neighborhood watches, too, so..

I'd say the side that thinks they need as many men with as many guns as possible patrolling the streets patting down anyone who looks suspicious are more frightened of crime and less confident in their ability to deal with it than the side that thinks you can deal with it via social workers and suchlike. That's absent a judgment on who is right, or what the correct level of fear is: when I'm scared of things I want to deal with them violently and immediately, when I'm not viscerally scared of things I talk about long term root causes.

That's a fair characterisation and a point that I'd overlooked. I'd be curious to see what hard-libertarians' preferred approach to crime is.

Sure, but map the spectrum onto either a binary or the spectrum or left-right and it doesn't come out with "Rightists are confident self-defenders" and "Leftists are nervous weaklings."

I think my comment may have unintentionally presented this theory as a be-all and end-all theory when I viewed it as more of a contributing factor which might assist in leading one down one garden path or another. I'm not denying that there are strong, confident people who nevertheless support authoritarian policies, or vice versa.

Which is my point about libertarianism: people adopt libertarian and constitutionalist talking points when their tribe is under perceived threat from the government, and ignore them when their tribe is in power.

Agree.

I think my comment may have unintentionally presented this theory as a be-all and end-all theory when I viewed it as more of a contributing factor which might assist in leading one down one garden path or another.

That's fair, and I apologize if it seemed like I was jumping down your throat. I think you can see how "Right man strong, left man scared" is kind of a boo-outgroup alarm, in the same way as /r/science loves to post articles about how conservatives are dumber, less open to experience, etc.

Yes, in retrospect suggesting that men only support leftist policies because they're physically weak was rather poorly phrased.

Indeed, it's not only physical weakness contributing to that.

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