site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   34136 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.

I used to hold similar views to you, that laws against recreational drugs were a massive injustice.

Then I saw what happened in cities where drugs were de facto, or in Portland’s case de jure, legalized. The externalities from junkies got worse, not better. Regular citizens have to deal with more theft, more random acts of violence, more derelict homeless camp eyesores.

Now I think keeping certain drugs illegal just makes pragmatic sense. If you’re a sensible enough drug user you’re very unlikely to be caught, but if you’re not it gives society a good tool to lock you up. Maybe the evidence of your theft or violence is shaky enough that you’ll be let off. But “we found drugs in your pants” is pretty rock solid, notwithstanding your protestations that they’re not your pants.

It’s essentially giving cops discretion to arrest people they believe are up to no good just from their appearance, with the extra check that they need some pretext for the stop and must actually find some drugs.

Then I saw what happened in cities where drugs were de facto, or in Portland’s case de jure, legalized. The externalities from junkies got worse, not better. Regular citizens have to deal with more theft, more random acts of violence, more derelict homeless camp eyesores.

I personally have yet to see the argument that the trade-offs of junkies are worth occasional recreational drug use. I've sampled most party drugs at some point in my life, and I'm not a regular user of any since, whilst I don't mind having ticked that box, I don't see any need to be ongoingly engaged. And the trade-off I get in return for my society being liberal on drugs is occasionally having RPG random encounters with people who are literally irrational actors.

The trade-off is supposed to involve minimizing junkiehood.

A maximally harsh policy, e.g. death for casual use, is a one-way door. You need a policy which makes people less likely to opt out of society and into crime. Ideally, you want to give them every opportunity to make the right choice. If the on-ramp to street shitting is slower than the off-ramp to rehab, those random encounters should dwindle away.

I think you can see why this would be important to people who 1) think punishments like prison are ineffective and 2) describe their politics in terms of compassion and empathy. This policy wasn’t implemented for you, but for faces under a proverbial boot.

It’s essentially giving cops discretion to arrest people they believe are up to no good just from their appearance

Is this going to be one of those 'I never thought leopards would eat my face' moments?

It’s essentially giving cops discretion to arrest people they believe are up to no good just from their appearance, with the extra check that they need some pretext for the stop and must actually find some drugs.

This, except they don't need to find some drugs, they only need to """find""" some drugs.

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