site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   29554 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 26, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Are you trying to convince us with this information that is irrelevant to anyone but you, or convince yourself? If yourself why bother us with it?

If it's not the orwellian stranglehold on all information in the west that is fueling the vibe change will your team finally relinquish control of it? Free Durov? Stop lawfaring Elon Musk. Maybe I can finally browse reddit for news w/o it being freeze framed photos of Kennedy stopped at just the right moment to make him look as stupid as possible "organically" voted to the front page.

I doubt it though. This post basically reads like, "It's not totalitarianism! it's Kamala's youthfulness!"

If you were trying to convince us and not yourself than I have to say no, I still think you lot are totalitarians.

This is all personal attack and booing your outgroup.

Even if your uncharitable reading of @netstack and his "affiliation and interests" (as @theory only slightly less obnoxiously put it) was correct, people are allowed to post about "vibes" and impressions and opinions they have about what's going on in politics. Indeed, that makes up a large share of the posts here. If you think his reading is off, or what he perceives is because he's biased and in a bubble, you can say that. You cannot say "Shut up and go away, we don't want your kind or your opinions here."

So we can't post links to well thought out articles without wasting time regurgitating parts of it in our own words or adding pointless takes, but we can just randomly showerthought now?

So we can't post links to well thought out articles without wasting time regurgitating parts of it in our own words or adding pointless takes

You cannot post bare links. If you feel it is a waste of your time to be asked to tell people why you are posting something and why you think it's worth discussing, then this is not the place to post those links.

but we can just randomly showerthought now?

You can post things that you think are relevant and interesting. It is possible someone else will think it is a "random showerthought," but they will be expected to respond to you with civility.

I mean, my mom and dad like Harris is pretty short shrift for a post.

I think it was a great top level post. Plus it’s retroactively validated by the amount of discussion it kicked off.

We are always told “discussion doesn’t validate whether a top level post is good or not.” What makes you think it is great? It reminds me of Tom Friedman talking about his cab driver.

We are always told “discussion doesn’t validate whether a top level post is good or not.”

Yes, that's a valid point to bring up. A bare link that occasions a fascinating reply doesn't itself become a good post - but I would nonetheless be thankful in retrospect that that bare link was posted, if the reply it solicited was good enough.

What makes you think it is great?

It's an earnest and straightforward anecdote about an interesting and relevant topic.

I don't really get the sense @netstack is among the "you lot" your post refers to.

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