site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   34135 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 29, 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.

Find who the wealthy funders are for the anti-policing politicians. Make tens of thousands of flyers and posters detailing their name and residence and schools of these individuals so that citizens can (legally) protest at those locations. Make sure to detail how much money they have. Then place them mostly in the areas where the homeless are located, providing directions from that location to the locations associated with the donors. Perhaps offer to pay them to protest. Imagine dozens of homeless people protesting outside of a school funded by one of these donors, embarrassing their family name right where the students are picked up, all for a measly $80 a day. On social media, do something similar but attach the phone numbers of all associated companies, so that citizens can (legally) call these entities and express their dissatisfaction at the crime problem in SF. If all of this is done legally (as it must be) then it may be effective and inexpensive. On social media, you can also make an account like “donor spotted”, so that if the donors are at some fancy restaurant, you can wait outside and embarrass them (legally). Imagine if they are with an important client!

Just because something is legal and the left can get away with doing it to the right, doesn't mean the authorities will allow the left to be attacked in the same way.

Before embarking on any campaign that might screw other people over within legal limits, consider how easily you might be targeted with legal fuckery.

OP suddenly finds he is being investigated for breaching labor laws, anti-money laundering for paying in cash, etc.

Why would they have to delve into OP's business and finances? They can just prosecute the picketing campaign itself as "harassment." Or maybe "terrorism."

Maybe even a hate crime

There are serious ethical concerns with this approach.

Yes, that's why said wealthy funders already use this on people who support causes they don't like. Tit for tat.

If something's unethical, it's unethical, regardless if it's you doing it to get back at someone else who does the same unethical thing. This shouldn't be that controversial.

The sad thing is that cooperate defect and defect defect are both bad.

I looked around online and it appears that San Francisco has no ordinance regarding residential picketing:

San Francisco and Oakland have not restricted residential demonstrations.

Some cities do, though.

This is the historical American approach to democracy.

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