site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   33222 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

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.

23
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Are you completely certain that the government was doing most of the work of locking people down? From my perspective. It all started as a grassroots sort of thing, the most vocal people decided that they wanted to be locked down and didn't want to be exposed to the virus, or expose people they thought didn't want to be exposed. It became very clear, very early on, that any company or government institution that didn't fall in line with this policy would face massive social sanctions, callouts on social media, accusations of violence and racism ("you're literally killing people and people of color are the most vulnerable"), etc from these most vocal proponents of lockdown. That was my perspective from leftist-city USA, that the government and everyone else was just doing what they were pressured to do. I don't know if that's true everywhere, though.

That makes it worse - 50% of the population put the other 50% [adjust numbers as necessary] under home arrest imprisonment...

I agree it was terrible. I don't necessarily think either is worse, but I personally can't stand social shaming used to enforce policies, which is the MO of the left.

Are you completely certain that the government was doing most of the work of locking people down?

Speaking for my own locale, yes, I am 100% certain that most of the work was done by the government. On March 20, 2020, I was out for a fish fry with friends and literally no one gave a shit about Covid. The restaurant was packed. This was after the United States had implemented international flight restrictions, there were already tens of thousands of confirmed cases in the United States (meaning there were obviously many more) and there was no obvious evidence that anyone cared at all. Nonetheless, by Monday, our governor had issued a stay-at-home order.

I don't think lockdownism was organic at all.

What was the enforcement for the stay at home order? Where I was, I still drove around, took walks outside on roads and in public parks, went to the supermarket, etc. No one was threatening to stop me from doing these things, and I could have easily just gone and gotten together with people if I wanted to, gone to people's houses, met them outside in public places. Idk, maybe I was just lucky and the police never stopped me to give me a ticket for breaking lockdown, but I don't think that was the case. No one seemed worried about such things at all.

I got thrown out of parks, by armed police officers, twice, in Essex County, NJ.

This "lockdown didn't happen" revisionism is tiresome.

All restaurants and most businesses were fully closed. I am not aware of any that attempted to test legal enforcement

(https://evers.wi.gov/Documents/COVID19/EMO12-SaferAtHome.pdf):

Outdoor activity. To engage in outdoor activity, including visiting public and state parks, provided individuals comply with Social Distancing Requirements as defined below. Such activities include, by way of example and without limitation, walking, biking, hiking, or running. Individuals may not engage in team or contact sports such as by way of example and without limitation, basketball, ultimate frisbee, soccer, or football, as these activities do not comply with Social Distancing Requirements. Playgrounds are closed.

I'm getting incredibly angry as I read back through what these fuckers deigned to be the legitimate purview of government regulation. That I could probably get away with the sin of standing close to someone outside my home because the government doesn't quite the resources to stop me is some small comfort, but on the whole I think @Tophattingson is absolutely correct that Western governments obliterated the normal understanding of the social contract with these sorts of orders.

This was also my experience.

Edit: in Colorado. I think we were pretty chill about the whole ordeal. I just went about my life normally and I don’t think anything that I did was even ever against any certain new rule. There was a mask mandate I guess and restrictions on the number of people in an establishment, but other than that really not much changed.

We were encouraged to get out and get fresh air, for example. To go to parks, go hiking, things like this. There were never any outdoor mask requirements either.

Colorado very much mandated closure of so-called non-essential businesses which killed more than a few smaller ones. Mostly entertainment type venues since the order carved out basically every job that had any sort of political constituency. For the most part though the Governor left the political liability of lockdowns to county governments. The mayor of Denver initially wanted to shutdown liquor stores but quickly reversed course after panic buying caused some trouble.

No one seemed worried about such things at all.

Were where you places that you visited as crowded as before the corona?

If they were, then for at least your locale, you are correct.

If they weren't, however, the question arises why? Is it due to people being afraid of punishment, or due to them independently coming to the same conclusion as the lawmakers.

Are you completely certain that the government was doing most of the work of locking people down?

Yes.

If I want to visit a friend/business and they don't want me there, then that's fine. You can set whatever standards you want for yourself, and I'll accept them even if I don't agree.

If I want to visit a friend/business and the government threatens to imprison or fine me for it, then it's a lockdown.

Where I was, anyway, (northeastern US) I don't think the government was threatening to imprison for such things. I could be wrong, but I remember it all being advisories, but people were still free to do whatever they wanted. I know Australia and China had intense lockdowns imposed, but how many other places did? Were there any places in the US that took that approach?

I'm in Canada, and the local nonessential business restrictions/closures and gathering limits (as low as zero people allowed) were all enforced by fines in the $1k-$100k range, with most being $2800 for individuals.

A quick google shows similar laws in place in the US.

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