site banner
PaperclipPerfector  30d ago (text post)   29021 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.

Sometimes footage of people being killed finds its way into commercial releases:

Has it ever even been alleged that a murder was committed for the purpose of filming it?

Maybe some of the Livestream killers we've seen?

Terrorism would lose its purpose, if it didn't receive media coverage. Yet journalists reporting on crime committed by criminals seeking notoriety aren't prosecuted.

Consider also that the authorities with the power to do so are often uninterested in tamping down on ISIS snuff films.

I'm not sure if I understand the question. If you mean "has it ever been alleged that a murder was committed for the specific purpose of filming it for commercial release?", I believe the answer is no. My understanding is that every alleged "snuff film" turns out to fail one of the two criteria: either it isn't a real murder but just an unusually convincing special effects job; or it is a real murder, but it wasn't filmed specifically for commercial release (e.g. ISIS and cartel beheading videos are intended to be released but not sold; serial killers filming their kills but never intending to release them at all).

But if you're asking "has a murder ever been committed for the purpose of filming it?", I think essentially all ISIS or cartel beheading videos meet that description. Or at least filming the murder (in order to publicly release it and hopefully intimidate one's opponents) is a primary purpose, along with the immediate purpose of killing the person who currently finds himself on the business end of your machete. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if some of the people filmed being murdered by ISIS or a cartel did absolutely nothing to antagonise either group: the group just found themselves falling behind schedule in their content creation pipeline and the victim was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Now that I think about it, there are reasonable examples of murder committed for the purpose of filming it. And in those narrow cases, it would make sense to prosecute the channels distributing it. Publicizing ISIS beheading videos seems pretty bad to me! And certainly Livestream killers should be taken down.

But the contrast with CP still stands: while murder-for-content isn't impossible, it's less common than molestation for content, and certainly less common than filming molestation in order to sell or barter it. Prosecuting CP more plausibly reduces molestation, than prosecuting snuff films will reduce the murder rate.

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