site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   29529 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.

Here's the dumpster in question. It doesn't seem to be in a bike lane at all, rather the right turn lane, which is probably worse. Looks like enough space to put it on the sidewalk, if that was an option.

Also plenty of room for a competent cyclist to pass inside the cones -- not to speak ill of the dead, but a lot of the cycling discourse seems to vaccilate between "Bikes are Vehicles; I'm taking the lane if I damn well please" and "Bikes are Fragile -- motorists need to yield to them as though they were pedestrians".

If you are driving your car up to some roadwork and need to merge into the adjacent lane, it's 100% on you to make sure nobody crashes into you -- including drunks and people watching tiktok. If you ride a bike on a city street (which I used to do a lot) you have even more incentive to get good navigating this -- but the moralistic aspect seems to encourage dodging the blame when you fuck it up.

a lot of the cycling discourse seems to vaccilate between "Bikes are Vehicles; I'm taking the lane if I damn well please" and "Bikes are Fragile -- motorists need to yield to them as though they were pedestrians".

But... both of those are true. There's more than one type of vehicle, you can't just force classify everything as "a car" or "not a car." Race cars, tanks, motorcycles, garbage trucks, school busses, scooters, skateboards, and bikes are all "vehicles" but they handle vastly differently and therefore have different rules. A bike is naturally faster than a perrson walking but slower and more vulnerable than a car, that's just how it is, it's pointless to get mad at them for not following some imaginary speed binary of "you must go either 3 MPH or 30, nothing in between."

Also plenty of room for a competent cyclist to pass inside the cones -- not to speak ill of the dead, but a lot of the cycling discourse seems to vaccilate between "Bikes are Vehicles; I'm taking the lane if I damn well please" and "Bikes are Fragile -- motorists need to yield to them as though they were pedestrians".

Yeah, those are the activists I can't stand. I wouldn't pass inside those cones, looks kinda tight with the dumpster overhanging. But obstacles like that are just regular city trouble for all vehicles, happens all the time.

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