site banner
PaperclipPerfector  13d ago (text post)   30518 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.

$[skill] used to be not only desirable but also broadly necessary; as $[skill] became generally unnecessary, a large portion of the population has mostly abandoned it, while those who remained devoted to maintaining $[skill] became much more proficient.

That explains cooking and perhaps fitness but I think it obviously falls short on physical appearance, sex, and gun ownership. Education I think it also falls short on, education is much more generally necessary today now that you almost need a bachelor's degree to stock shelves at Walmart.

For Guns: To own a gun in modern America, you also have to defend your reasoning for having one to friends. You have to go to FFLs, which are staffed exclusively by assholes instead of by mail. Only people who are really into it will deal with the trouble.

Uh, what are you talking about? Is your filter bubble entirely composed of NYT journalists?

Let me second @FiveHourMarathon's "WTF" here. It might just be the local culture, but I've never known anyone* who had to "defend their reasoning for having a gun," to a friend, or anyone else. And I know plenty of gun owners. My dad and middle brother pretty much have an arsenal between them. Until about a year ago, the bulk of said brother's job was selling guns (as the manager of the hunting department at the local outlet of a "big box" sporting goods store chain) — I suppose that makes him an "asshole" in your view?

Though, again, I live in Alaska. We've got grizzlies, we've got moose, and we've got a rather more gun-friendly culture than the more urban, populous states. Anyone who would make a friend justify their reasoning for gun ownership almost certainly doesn't have any Alaskan friends, and would probably be quite unhappy living here.

I've been a gun owner for 15 years and lived in purple areas. It's not everyone, but I get plenty of "you don't seem like the type" and incredulity.

I'm not referring to any sort of legally required reasoning defense. I suppose if you preferred being a closeted gun owner, you could avoid it entirely.

It's not everyone, but I get plenty of "you don't seem like the type" and incredulity.

And I'm saying I've never seen this, ever.

I'm not referring to any sort of legally required reasoning defense.

I didn't think you were. I'm saying that in my experience, there's absolutely no reason you'd ever need to even socially defend your gun ownership to anyone, and there's no need to ever be "a closeted gun owner," because here in Alaska, nobody is going to give you shit for owning a gun.

Yeah man, I'd agree Alaska (and the deep south/Texas) are different from where I live now.

In New Jersey, one must obtain a voucher of one's worthiness to own a gun from 2 unrelated adult citizens before obtaining a permit to purchase a firearm, and again for each handgun one might wish to buy. And 3 such persons for a carry permit, though a carry permit barely allows you to carry (if you try you're almost certain to trip over a forbidden zone and become a felon). I'm not sure if any other states have this onerous requirement which would be unconstitutional if the Supreme Court took the 2nd Amendment seriously instead of just a debating point, but New Jersey does.

Ok, can you seriously think that any functional adult doesn't have three friends? When I got my ccw permit in PA, I had too many friends who wanted to be the reference. And I have trouble thinking of a person who doesn't have three friends who should have a gun.

This is the typical communitarian answer. But even people who aren't socially adept are supposed to have constitutional rights.

But we aren't talking about socially adept. We're talking about three unrelated people vouching for you. Coworkers. Landlord. The waitress at your favorite diner. Your pastor.

It's not that hard.

This is anti-incel discrimination.

It's really not, your wife isn't allowed to vouch for you.

I'm an atheist (no pastor) and a homeowner (no landlord), and don't work in the same state I live in (most coworkers don't count). And furthermore, there's the additional qualification that I must know qualified people who are not anti-gun. Which doesn't hold, because I live in deep blue New Jersey. If you want to go the whole "if you don't have X friends who will swear you're moral enough to own a gun, you probably shouldn't own a gun" route, you're an opponent of gun rights.

I live in Pennsylvania and I can think of five people in NJ and another dozen in NY who would offer me a reference for a permit if I called right now. I don't get what you're talking about. This is an insane assertion.

I'm an opponent of gun rights for felons. I'm an opponent of gun rights for non citizens. And yes, I'm at best neutral on the gun rights of isolated loners.

Anyone can just join a gun club and within a month they'll have two guys willing to vouch for them.

More comments

This is more New Jersey and maybe Illinois than anywhere else. Most places you don't need people to vouch for you to buy a gun, and you can buy from private sellers.

Bro what are you talking about.

I've bought a gun once in my life. Outside of my range buddies and the seller three people know about it. The seller was friendly and helpful and frankly cut me a better deal than I expected.

I respectfully disagree.

Physical appearance in the post I responded to refers specifically to physical fitness. Half-a-century ago, general physical fitness was broadly necessary (e.g., many people had to walk or do physical labor), and now is much less so (e.g., much smaller proportion of people have to walk or do physical labor, and for the latter OSHA mandates all kinds of supportive equipment).

Sex in the post I responded to refers primarily to marriage and its dissolution, so "how-to-get-and-stay-married" is the relevant skill here.

Finally, playing-the-game-of-credentialism (a.k.a. "education") is without a doubt a more widely practiced skill now than it was fifty years ago. About 90% graduate high-school; of those, half go to college; of those, about half graduate with a degree. Fifty years ago, much higher percentage of people dropped out of high-school, and less than 10% of those who graduated went on to college. (There stats are approximate but broadly correct.)

The credentialism game has changed to accommodate the large influx of people seeking credentials.

Sex in the post I responded to refers primarily to marriage and its dissolution, so "how-to-get-and-stay-married" is the relevant skill here.

I think your story makes sense for marriage but not for sex (for which as we all know marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient).

Finally, playing-the-game-of-credentialism (a.k.a. "education") is without a doubt a more widely practiced skill now than it was fifty years ago. About 90% graduate high-school; of those, half go to college; of those, about half graduate with a degree. Fifty years ago, much higher percentage of people dropped out of high-school, and less than 10% of those who graduated went on to college. (There stats are approximate but broadly correct.)

The credentialism game has changed to accommodate the large influx of people seeking credentials.

I don't really understand your point here. you seem to be agreeing with me that education is not something generally unnecessary, so it doesn't explain the bimodal distribution mentioned by OP.

I don't really understand your point here. you seem to be agreeing with me that education is not something generally unnecessary, so it doesn't explain the bimodal distribution mentioned by OP.

I think I see: OP conflated (or rather, placed in extreme proximity) education as getting-credentials and education as reading books. The getting-credentials has a coming-together pattern (more people are going for education credentials, so there is more of a continuum of the type of credentials and their quality), but the reading-books has a coming-apart pattern (majority read practically no books, a small minority read lots and lots of books).

Fat shaming was once a way of life in America. Guns usually have some combination of military service, hunting, or ruralness to justify them- all three exhibit the same pattern.

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