site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   29424 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 19, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

For reference, we have had only one incident that could be tied to incel ideology in the past few years. The incident itself was notable for a reason not often discussed, namely that it could have been prevented if a public servant had done their job correctly.

I think it's apparent that the existence of incels scares the shit out of centre-left/left aligned women, particularly those in the public sector. Potential threats of violence aside, the incel memeplex provides powerful competition to the worldview put forward by the predominantly liberal society, which encourages meekness, reassigns social failings concerning men to individual ones and denies their lived reality. Shutting down this memeplex and ensuring the young man conforms to the expected view (even if the young man in question refuses to deny the evidence of their eyes and ears) is of paramount importance, as the young man is only in school for about 6 hours a day but is exposed to online and offline belief systems for the rest of his time.

This suggested policy is stupid. We already have Prevent, which by itself does nothing and is a glorified list of potential terrormen that is written to but apparent never read, given that every news article I read about a lone wolf attacker he is almost always "known to authorities." I have written on this subject before, and in that time I see that absolutely nothing has changed. Educators, politicians and journalists will continue to misdiagnose the problem and suggest nonsensical solutions.

done their job correctly

In hindsight, the correct decision was keeping this nutjob from his gun. But was that obvious at the time?

"The FEO report reads: 'When L applied in 2017 I advised refusal, given he had a matrix score of 12 out of 16, PNC markers for violence, assault on police and drugs, but on consideration by the FLM, given that four years had passed since he last offended and he had not come to notice, and was now living with a lady with children, it was hoped that he had now matured and certificate was granted with a warning letter'

It’s not that he was rubber-stamped or that he bribed his way in. It’s that someone extended a second chance.

Ironically, if that’s accurate, he would not have been allowed to buy a gun in the US- assaulting an officer is a felony from which firearms rights are virtually never restored.

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