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.

In 1970, transwomen definitely tried to live as women and wanted to be referred to as "she."

I edited it into the previous post so you might not have seen it, but if society changed, so you couldn't assume that people who wanted to be called "your lordship" were insincere, would you call people that upon request?

I don't assume sincerity or insincerity. That's why pure conflict theory is lazy.

Your hypothetical is stupid, since "your lordship" would be addressing someone by a title that doesn't exist in this society and literally nobody (at least in the US) can lay claim to it. That's like asking "What if someone wants to be referred to as Mr Attack Helicopter hurr hurr hurr'."

But supposing there was some new movement of people genuinely convinced that they are noblemen born in the wrong century and social class, no, I would not call them "your lordship." Nor would I call someone who sincerely believes he's an attack helicopter Mr Attack Helicopter.

I don't assume sincerity or insincerity.

Your answer was basically "anyone who wants me to call them 'your lordship' is trolling or crazy." If they're not crazy, that assumes insincerity.

But supposing there was some new movement of people genuinely convinced that they are noblemen born in the wrong century and social class, no, I would not call them "your lordship."

Why then is your answer different for "your lordship" and for trans pronouns?

Why then is your answer different for "your lordship" and for trans pronouns?

I don't believe in nobility. I do believe in classifying people according to their gender presentation.

Your answer was basically "anyone who wants me to call them 'your lordship' is trolling or crazy." If they're not crazy, that assumes insincerity.

"I do not assume X or Y" does not mean "I do not ever under any circumstances whatsoever draw any conclusions about X or Y."

You know this.

"I do not assume X or Y" does not mean "I do not ever under any circumstances whatsoever draw any conclusions about X or Y.

If the circumstances where you draw conclusions are the vast majority of all circumstances, then you do assume them. That's what assuming means.

If the circumstances where you draw conclusions are the vast majority of all circumstances, then you do assume them. That's what assuming means.

Unfamiliarity with Bayesian reasoning is a surprising thing to see here.

"Assume" in common parlance includes Bayseian reasoning.

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