site banner
PaperclipPerfector  13d ago (text post)   30538 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.

Your selective use of the murder rate

You're performing a Gish gallop Chinese robber fallacy by citing a dozen emotionally loaded stories of violent crimes committed in Europe by people who aren't European (conveniently ignoring all the violent crimes committed by Europeans) - and you're accusing me of "selectively" using the dispassionate, objective metric of the murder rate to make my case that Romania is in fact significantly more dangerous (and Ireland significantly safer) than you're claiming? Physician, heal thyself.

I don't dispute that migrants to Europe are overrepresented in crime stats. I don't even dispute that immigration policy into Europe may have been too lax in recent years and may be need to be restricted somewhat. But I am not persuaded that Ireland or any other western European country ought to be an ethnostate. Hell, this entire discussion was prompted by me complaining that Anglophone news outlets cover migrant crime in a dishonest and knowingly misleading way. Why are you so mad at me, of all people?

If Ireland maintains its current immigration levels and the birth rate doesn't increase, the indigenous population will be effectively extinct before the end of the century and in its place will be some amorphous Brazilian blob. I gather you don't care about racial identity, but there are plenty of people who do and don't want to see Western Europe die.

Correct, I don't really care that much about racial identity. Pointing out that other people care about it does nothing to persuade me. Persuade me why I should care.

That’s not really what a Gish gallop is. Nor is a Gish gallop a formal fallacy anyway. Crying Gish gallop against a list of arguments is less than a meaningful response

Fair enough, I'll amend to Chinese robbering.

And now he's deleted his Gish gallop/Chinese robbering anyway, along with all of his recent comments. "Don't mind me", indeed.

You're performing a Gish gallop by citing a dozen emotionally loaded stories of violent crimes committed in Europe by people who aren't European (conveniently ignoring all the violent crimes committed by Europeans) - and you're accusing me of "selectively" using the dispassionate, objective metric of the murder rate to make my case that Romania is in fact significantly more dangerous (and Ireland significantly safer) than you're claiming? Physician, heal thyself.

He's more right then you are. I added a reply to Hus comment with a link to a breakdown of German crime numbers by ethnicity, which is a better metric than the general murder rate.

If he asserts that Romania is safer than Ireland, I provide evidence to show that Romania in fact has a higher murder rate than Ireland - how does a breakdown of violent crime by ethnicity prove me wrong? I don't dispute that a disproportionate share of violent crime in Europe is committed by recent migrants from outside of Europe. That doesn't change the fact that Romania's murder rate is higher than Ireland's.

Isn’t it a bit more complicated compared to looking at just murder rates? Let’s say Population X worldwide commits crime at rate of 2/100. Population Y 1/100.

Country A has a tough on crime policy that lowers both rates by 10%. Country B has a lax on crime policy that increases both rates by 10%. But Country A has a materially higher rate of Population X compared to Country B whereas B has a higher rate of Population Y.

Country B will have a lower crime rate but it won’t be because of policy and indeed the more the demographics shifted the higher the crime rate of B will climb.

I’m not saying that describes Ireland or Romania. To be honest, I don’t know either well enough to make this claim. But the concept seems reasonable.

Whatever the underlying reason for it, I think if you want to argue that Country X is more dangerous than Country Y (because of the different policies/demographic makeup/policing approach in the two countries) - your argument falls at the first hurdle if Country Y is actually more dangerous than Country X.

Would Ireland have a lower murder rate if we allowed in fewer immigrants from certain countries? Almost certainly yes. Doesn't change the fact that Ireland's current murder rate with its current population constitution has a lower murder rate than Romania.

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