site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   33934 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 9, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think my point is reasonably clear and plain: people are signal boosting rumors with a reckless disregard for the truth because they don't care about whether the particulars are true. Given the context of the rest of the not-very-long post, I'm not sure how someone would read some other meaning into that sentence.

Alternatively, they could “not care” whether the story is true because they believe that mainstream sources would never bother to check the story. Thus there’s no way to fact check the story at all from sources of record. So if the people telling those stories believe that the story is too political to deal with honestly, why “care” if it’s true. The media dug its grave a long time ago and is only worth reading if you want to know what the elites want you to think.

I think my point is reasonably clear and plain: people are signal boosting rumors with a reckless disregard for the truth because they don't care about whether the particulars are true.

Your point was clear enough, yes. Which part of my point did you not understand?

When it turns out to be true, will you commit to publicly acknowledging it?
Because every time in the past the strategy has been "you heard that on libs of tiktok and everyone knows she lies"

When it turns out to be true, will you commit to publicly acknowledging it?

Are all of the rest of you publicly committing to acknowledging it when it turns out that Skibboleth was right and it's all fake outrage? Or are you just trying to impose a double standard?

We have a solution for this around these parts, and it's called making a bet.

Now I doubt there's a prediction market for Haitian shenanigans, but surely we can come up with a level of evidence that would satisfy both sides and a time frame for it appearing.

Let's say if a police report/bodycam or local newspaper reports on physical evidence of someone poaching local birds or pets within Springfield within the next three months?

@Skibboleth, @SteveKirk are you guys willing to get some skin in the game? No pun intended. Come on guys, if it's obvious, it's free money.

Absolutely not, because I remember this exact same scenario playing out at least three times, and in two of those cases a bet would never have been adjudicated fairly.

First and most obviously, Jussie Smollett. It was like pulling teeth, but eventually the people defending him shifted their counter-attacks to "why are you so obsessed with hoaxes when they're so rare?"
IMO the only reason that one might have settled is that the main representative for the losing side was so overwhelmingly disliked he had no social cover. Already unpopular people facing social consequences isn't great evidence for fair and impartial systems.

Second, the Virginia school bathroom rape case. To my knowledge nobody on team "there were no gender neutral bathrooms, ok but you can't prove there was actually a rape, ok but he wasn't really gender fluid, anyway it's super rare why are you so obsessed TERF" ever admitted wrongdoing. And I'm pretty sure that one catholic girl was banned for pressing them on it at least once.

Third and most recently, the Sam Brinton case where it took three arrests for stealing women's clothing for the people litigating it to go from pretending it was a right wing conspiracy to pretending they'd never heard of the guy.

Who's going to judge the bet? Some of the mods are the people from those other cases.
Even if we do get the absolutely overwhelming evidence we got in those other cases (and I admit we might not see the same Haitian guy arrested three times with a skinned cat in a sack each time), the bets will do nothing.
And you'd better believe the media will be pulling out all the stops to play the exact same "no evidence acknowledged by Reliable Sources" game they played in all those cases, until everyone's internalized that it was just another case of Republicans Pouncing.

Absolutely not, because I remember this exact same scenario playing out at least three times, and in two of those cases a bet would never have been adjudicated fairly.

Really? Bets were made and stakes were put on the table? I don't remember this. People throw "Want to make a bet on it?" a lot, but I don't recall anyone ever trying to set up a formal wager.

And I'm pretty sure that one catholic girl was banned for pressing them on it at least once.

I wish she were still around to react to being called "that one catholic girl."

I don't know which specific ban you are talking about, but her repeated bans were never because she was saying things mods disagreed with or against someone who enjoyed the mods' favor, but because she had a problem saying things without being an antagonistic and personally insulting about it.

Who's going to judge the bet? Some of the mods are the people from those other cases.

Who? Name names and post links.

I wish she were still around to react to being called "that one catholic girl."

I wish she were still around too, but I feel, if you observe this comment of yours carefully, you'll realize that if she were around her resultant comment would probably again get her a mod warning, or worse. This is just my observation.

Probably. That was the problem. She could be a good contributor, but she could not control her temper and she thought being offended was a license to shit on people.

Many such cases.

Ah, going through my post history?

Nope, happened to see this belatedly while going through the mod queue.

So, are you going to actually back up anything you claimed?

If you are willing to bet enough I'll fly out there and check. Flights aren't that expensive. I should be able to tell if there are 20k extra people from Haiti eating birds and whatnot. No one ever puts their money where their mouth is. Many people talk a lot, few are up for the moment. Round trip is only 200 bucks!

I may be able to save you a flight.

Where's 2010 era field journalists when you need them. You'd think local kids in Springfield and around would be picking up the clout that's on the table for doing very simple field work of filming in and around the area and interviewing locals about what they think of the controversy uncut.

Though to be fair, the whole controversy seems to stem from people posting on local subreddits about this happening in the first place.

At least one of them is in fact doing just that.

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