site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   29569 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.

It's not a surprise that people don't ride bikes anywhere when you have to share the road with people who essentially have carte blanche to kill you with impunity The lack of consequences for killing or injuring bikers casts serious doubt on the claim that cyclists are the "favoured children".

If you cause a fatal crash, have a valid license, aren't drunk or on drugs, and don't leave the scene, the chances of you going down for vehicular homicide are extremely low, regardless of the means of transportation of the victim. Cyclist-activists crying about this when it happens to cyclists is special pleading.

Now, now, even if you are drunk and unlicensed and have 19 moving violations you might get away with probation after not even being arrested before a media circus starts up. If you have a license, your fatal booze cruise will probably just end up with a slap on the wrist.

It's not really special pleading because drivers are much better protected against other drivers than cyclists are. Pedestrians are similarly unprotected, but they usually are not directly on the road at least.

Now, now, even if you are drunk and unlicensed and have 19 moving violations you might get away with probation after not even being arrested before a media circus starts up.

I cannot find any indication alcohol was involved in this incident. But it's not any different with drivers who kill other people in cars.

It's not really special pleading because drivers are much better protected against other drivers than cyclists are.

That's exactly special pleading, due to being more vulnerable. You want drivers to be held to a higher standard when they kill cyclists as opposed to killing people in cars.

SEP

More to the point might be a worry about special pleading. This is different from backsliding, because the special pleader is the person who makes exceptions in their own favour. It would not be right for most people to do what I propose to do, but I am special; so I am left off the moral hook that others are caught by.

IEP

Special pleading is a form of inconsistency in which the reasoner doesn’t apply his or her principles consistently. It is the fallacy of applying a general principle to various situations but not applying it to a special situation that interests the arguer even though the general principle properly applies to that special situation, too.

An argument about special pleading won't get resolved without showing the supposed principles are inconsistently applied.

What is the standard sentencing for car drivers who kill other people in cars? Is it different if they kill pedestrians? If The_Nybbler is right, the driver gets probation for both, and the principle is consistent. (Consistently callous.) One could raise the sentencing waterline for all kinds of vehicle-caused deaths, too.

I cannot find any indication alcohol was involved in this incident.

You're right, I misread it.

You want drivers to be held to a higher standard when they kill cyclists as opposed to killing people in cars.

Wow, that's what I want? I'm sure you won't have trouble quoting the part where I said that, then.

Wow, that's what I want? I'm sure you won't have trouble quoting the part where I said that, then.

Sure:

It's not really special pleading because drivers are much better protected against other drivers than cyclists are.

The non-bulverist reading of my comment is:

A minor fuckup or lapse of attention (which are unlikely to be punished in any real way) on the part of a driver may result in cosmetic damage to a car or a fatality for a cyclist. It is much less likely to result in the death of a motorist. Therefore, cyclists are much more likely to encounter situations where they are killed and drivers face no consequences than a motorist. Therefore, cyclists being concerned about this is not special pleading.

I think it's pretty obvious that I was not, in fact, arguing for stricter punishment for killing a cyclist than for killing a motorist. That's a motivated reading if I ever saw one.

To make it completely obvious - if you kill someone while driving, there should be consequences.

To make it completely obvious - if you kill someone while driving, there should be consequences.

And my response is that if you kill someone while driving and you aren't drunk or high and don't leave the scene, chances of criminal consequences are low regardless of whether the person killed is a cyclist, a pedestrian, or someone in a motor vehicle. It's not different for cyclists.

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