site banner
PaperclipPerfector  26d ago (text post)   26117 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 25, 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.

"Permanent damage to your body" is something millions of people will willingly do if the STATUS incentive is high enough:

  • Military Special Operations
  • Professional Athletes
  • High stress jobs with extreme levels of compensation (Banker, High end Surgeon, big Litigator etc.)

In fact, what I just listed above are some of the tippy-top status markers for men. Personal health is not at all sacrosanct (flip the coin; millions of people smoke, drink too much, eat too much, and never exercise).

"millions" means about 0.1% of world population yet we want >80% women to become mothers.

I don't think I see your point and, to the extent that (I think) I do, I reject it.

Are you saying that it's unreasonable to expect 80%+ of women to go through pregnancy and labor? I mean, I get it, it's not like this is a species level existential issue - oh, wait, that's exactly what we're talking about.

This is a deeply values based discussion. Pregnancy and childbirth might "suck" and "ruin your body" but the end result is the creation of a human life and, if done during peak fertility years, decades of love and joy. Furthermore, it's necessary for the species to continue itself.

That this observation (about minority of men) is a very weak evidence whether median woman would be affected by it

I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying.

Are you saying that it's unreasonable to expect 80%+ of women to go through pregnancy and labor?

It's obviously unreasonable to expect 80% of women to be held to the same standards of special military operators or pro athletes, and, if that's not relevant, why did you bring it up?

This is an amazing conflation of two points. I wouldn't want to debate you in person as you seem adept at twisting an argument.

Point 1: Incentives matter. People will put themselves through extreme hardships given proper incentives (this was the Special Ops / pro military argument)

Point 2: We should expect the overwhelming majority of women to go through childbirth as the species is dependent upon it.

Your franken-counter-assertion "We are demanding that women be like special operations!"

I see what you did there. It was well done, my congratulations.

That’s more succinct than what I was going to say, but yes. More than half of women are still having children.

It’s a bit odder in Korea, which still has mandatory conscription for men, but fewer than half of women are having babies. Seems related to almost their entire childhood being stressful, not just a year here or there.

Yup.

You can convince a young guy to literally endure repeated blows to the head if the payoff is high enough.

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