site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   35891 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.

If it meant that, we'd see things like rule changes to make proggy blues more comfortable;

We saw that, but only to a minimal extent. It was not and is not an unbounded drift, because the mods do in fact appear to have fairly durable principles. @Amadan, @Gattsaru and I have had some remarkably frank exchanges of views, and I have never seen him abuse his mod privilege's toward us or anyone else.

maybe we'd even see topic bans to slow the reds down

I don't think the topic ban "slowed the reds down" even slightly. Making every conversation into an argument over HBD on the basis of poorly-evidenced post-hoc rationalizations was not productive, and Red takes on the culture war generally were not rare during its duration.

Below, there's a post about Theil's new dating sight, which offers the question "why do women hate conservative men?" There's a couple posts pointing out that the evidence presented doesn't remotely support the initial claim... and then there's like a dozen sub-threads taking the initial claim at face value and building towers of supposition off the initial shoddy foundation. It's an example of a regrettable tendency of the locals, to simply run with whatever prompt they're given according to individual narrative. It's a tendency that is not healthy or productive in the long run, and sometimes mod intervention is the best way to keep a lid on it. I think the HBD moratorium was one of those times.

In any case it ended years ago, and it is not in force now, so you are free to make whatever arguments you like on the subject.

we'd see notorious blue-aligned posters get away with nearly anything, consistently (it'd be quite a.. Darwinian environment)

This one I strongly disagree with. I spent quite a bit of time arguing with the poster in question, and even longer observing their methods. They got away with what they did because they were very, very good at their particular game. The tolerances that allowed them to operate is the same as the tolerances that allowed me to operate, and I note that they ate long-term bans and are now gone, while I did not and am still here. Meanwhile, I've seen several dozen Blues operating in bad faith without the advantage of actual one-in-a million social genius go down in flames, beating their heads to pulp against norms they couldn't abide.

we'd see bans consistently hitting one side of the political divide harder than the other.

I don't think I've actually seen this. As mentioned above, I've seen a lot of long-time Blues flame out or get banned, and it's not obvious to me that there's actually a disparity in bans between reds and blues.

We'd see moves to enshrine blue values like pathological civility and gullibility into the very DNA of the forum.

I disagree that there's a requirement for "pathological" civility or gullibility here. I don't think there's a position you personally hold that can't be presented here to good effect. Yes it requires effort, and yes, there is some level of bias baked into the nature of the place, and yes, the norms can often be annoying. Lots of things are annoying; a big part of maturity is learning to accept that fact with equanimity, and not let it distract you from the business at hand.

We saw that, but only to a minimal extent.

"I concede this happened, but it's not a big deal."

Okay. Yes it was.

In any case it ended years ago, and it is not in force now, so you are free to make whatever arguments you like on the subject.

Yet it still happened, and only against a right-wing hobby horse.

This one I strongly disagree with. I spent quite a bit of time arguing with the poster in question, and even longer observing their methods. They got away with what they did because they were very, very good at their particular game.

"The norms are fine and not implicitly leftist because they enable traditional leftist methods of trolling" is not convincing me. Yes, Darwin managed to skirt by. He would not in an environment more to my liking.

I don't think I've actually seen this. As mentioned above, I've seen a lot of long-time Blues flame out or get banned, and it's not obvious to me that there's actually a disparity in bans between reds and blues.

If you add up all the bans, I'm confident you'll find more right-leaning than left-leaning names on it. For the obvious reason: incivility is a more typical right-coded transgression, and by far the most common reason for anyone to get banned.

I disagree that there's a requirement for "pathological" civility or gullibility here. I don't think there's a position you personally hold that can't be presented here to good effect. Yes it requires effort, and yes, there is some level of bias baked into the nature of the place, and yes, the norms can often be annoying. Lots of things are annoying; a big part of maturity is learning to accept that fact with equanimity, and not let it distract you from the business at hand.

I just the other day copped a warning for calling out a transparent bad-faith troll. Because calling people out is not something you're supposed to do here. That's a thoroughly bad status quo.

I also reject your definition of maturity.

I just the other day copped a warning for calling out a transparent bad-faith troll.

No, you copped a warning for calling someone a bad-faith troll. Subtle but significant difference there. The fact that this particular user was a long-time poster who has never had a history of trolling of any kind made it transparently obvious that you were just throwing a tantrum and namecalling because someone contradicted you.

Because calling people out is not something you're supposed to do here. That's a thoroughly bad status quo.

This is correct, though. "Calling people out," besides being obnoxious teen girl behavior more suitable for LiveJournal or Tumblr, is not productive. You may argue with people. You may disagree with them. You may express opinions about the quality of their arguments. You may not just fling insults because you've decided someone is a bad-faith troll and therefore you're "calling them out."

The fact that this particular user was a long-time poster who has never had a history of trolling of any kind made it transparently obvious that you were just throwing a tantrum and namecalling because someone contradicted you.

Your inability to not be fooled by transparent sneering does you no credit. You should replace this inappropriate pride of yours with a healthy dose of shame.

This is correct, though.

I know. Thanks for backing me up.

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