site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   30272 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm almost sad that nobody has 'called me out' on this given my consistent pounding of the need for accountability among the elites. My closing remark on that comment is:

Eventually the proles will start to conclude that the system is in fact SET UP so as to ensure elites are guaranteed to thrive regardless of the state of the country and that perhaps the only way skin gets re-inserted to the game is if the proles taken action themselves.

I think it does merit discussion as to whether this killing is the sort of action that suffices to bring more 'skin in the game' back to an increasingly unaccountable system where 'nobody' is responsible for bad outcomes.

For the record on my positions:

Do I condone the killing?: No, the opposite. There were other options on the table.

Do I understand the shooter's motives: Yes, and I find them sympathetic while I condemn the action. The fact that nobody else was harmed in the process is to his credit.

Do I think the killing is probably an 'inevitable' result of institutional failures that individuals feel powerless to affect? Yeah.

I think it is in fact bad that the guy is getting such an ovation from certain corners of the internet, and I strongly suspect many will come to regret their open support of the guy, even if they don't ever publicly recant.

I would remind people that this is just the most recent successful amateur assassination of a highly-positioned figure.

Multiple people took potshots at Trump earlier this year, as we all recall. The individual would-be assassins just didn't get the kind of outpouring of support this guy is receiving. Also can't forget that MULTIPLE people have lit themselves on fire due to the Israel-Palestine situation, so there's just 'something in the air' that is leading people to potentially suicidal action in the U.S. to try to affect large-scale outcomes.

I strongly suspect we're looking at a potential rash of future assassins, The means are more available than ever (3D printed guns are impossible to ban at this point). The motives are varied, and the signal cannot be ignored, if you choose your target well, that you'll get adulation and attention to your particular cause.

I'd also argue it ties into discussion of the 'male loneliness epidemic,' because the sort of disaffected males with minimal prospects are going to notice that women are responding positively to targeted killings. Objectively its the most high-impact action a guy in that age range can take, short of founding a billion-dollar company (or having a couple kids, but the whole point is that isn't a likely outcome these days!).

And that right there is why I don't think these killings or attempts quite qualify as legitimate 'skin in the game,' because they're not filtering out bad actors in a systemic, reliable way. Indeed, the people who live and who die will be almost random in a sense. There's no real attempt to select for targets based on qualities that we want to remove or disincentivize, the selection effect is not towards removing bad actors for harms they are responsible for.

We want the skin in the game to be a direct result of the institution/system itself functioning as intended, rather than a second or arguably third-order effect of its dysfunctioning. But, this will possibly lead to some reformation of the systems or institutions themselves.

I'm almost sad that nobody has 'called me out' on this given my consistent pounding of the need for accountability among the elites. My closing remark on that comment is:

But this assassin is an elite. The target was a working man who was surprisingly exceptional.

I had picked up on this delightfully ironic twist.

The individual would-be assassins [of Trump] just didn't get the kind of outpouring of support this guy is receiving.

I would argue that's mostly because they failed, and were immediately killed/arrested. Had someone managed to actually end Trump's life and then vanish (at least for a couple of days), that person would have been an absolute legend among the TDS types.

Agreed. They would have become legends even if they succeeded and then were immediately killed/arrested. The public outpouring of support for the person would be bigger than what Mangione is getting. But they failed.

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