site banner
PaperclipPerfector  19d ago (text post)   32930 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 4, 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.

who wrote in the government system messages such as: “Trump sign no entry per leadership.”

What a brilliant way to make a paper trail that's less deniable than whistleblowing that would be dismissed as "claims without evidence." If your boss doesn't overrule you, he's nailed himself she/her has nailed herself.

To be fair though I wouldn't want to be knocking at Trump houses in a Florida swamp going "Hi, this is FEMA. Before you ask, yes these are level 4 plates, but I'm out of spares so please don't aim for the cracked bits"

Lots of leftists basically think Deliverance was a documentary and have a statistically unjustified fear of rural white Republicans. I don't doubt that some FEMA workers really were afraid to knock on the door of homes with Trump signs.

Yes, I honestly can't blame them given how hard we've leaned into menacing banjo music intensifies to goad this exact sort of ovaryaction, see "your face, my mace" etc.

Except that there were no such shootings. It literally never happened, and to my knowledge no one actually pointed a gun at anyone working for FEMA. The idea that they were worried about getting shot is a just-so story.

Second, it is part of the job. The job of a FEMA agent is to get people aid, and “I’m scared” is no more valid for FEMA than it is for the local cops. You don’t get to join a first responders agency and then be too scared to respond. Especially if you’re doing checks on the safety of Americans in a hurricane situation.

Except that there were no such shootings. It literally never happened, and to my knowledge no one actually pointed a gun at anyone working for FEMA. The idea that they were worried about getting shot is a just-so story.

They may not have known that at the time. Something not existing in the territory does not mean it isn't marked on the map.

Second, it is part of the job. The job of a FEMA agent is to get people aid, and “I’m scared” is no more valid for FEMA than it is for the local cops. You don’t get to join a first responders agency and then be too scared to respond. Especially if you’re doing checks on the safety of Americans in a hurricane situation.

A valid point. If the safety concerns were the issue, they should have directed "If a house has a Trump sign, bring backup just in case."

I mean sure, it’s plausible that in some odd universe that it’s possible that someone might pull a gun on a FEMA agent. But again, even with millions of Trump supporters there’s no incident like this. There’s perhaps a need for caution, but there’s a difference between “there have been threats made, so be careful and buddy up” and “avoid houses with [out group] signage because those guys are more likely to be the shooters.

I know, but I've spent the last decade joining in on the "hey ATF, my dog shoots first" thing, and I really hate the "lol you're crazy for hallucinating all those things I said" gaslighting tactic.
Even if they're immoral for doing it, I'm not going to mock someone for taking things I said in jest (steely unironic intent) seriously.

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