site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   30507 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.

Not really. If mcgregor was a nobody, then yeah absolutely. But all things equal I would expect a famous person to have more accusations against them since the cost of making the accusations are low (even the accusers name is shielded) and the upsides are there (payout, excuse for cheating etc).

Not saying these are false but count doesn’t really do it for me.

But all things equal I would expect a famous person to have more accusations against them

How many rape accusations does e.g. Barack Obama have against him? What about Chris Pratt? What about JD Vance? What does it say about McGregor that plenty of prominent men have approximately zero rape accusations to their name?

My guess is it says Mcgregor engages in more trysts. I’m unwilling to say he is a rapist based solely off of accusations.

I’m not saying all famous people Will have these claims but I’m saying they are less reliable indicator of guilt compared to non famous people.

This seems like a weird heuristic which no one ever applies in any other context. If a company is accused of fraud once, well, that happens; twice, well, accidents happen. But I strongly suspect that you would avoid doing business with a successful company currently facing five or more independent concurrent investigations/lawsuits for fraud. Sooner or later you have to start wondering if there's fire in addition to smoke.

It's also plainly untrue that every sufficiently famous person will eventually face an unfounded accusation of sexual misconduct. There are celebrities who've been in the public eye for decades without once being accused of misbehaving.

I suspect it depends on what business they're in, Accountants probably have a one strike rule, contractors probably need about 20 or you're not going to find one to work with!

Apples and oranges. When someone is accusing the company of fraud, it isn’t a relative free ride. They ca. easily be sued for defamation. If it is a hedge fund, they lose reputation if there isn’t fraud. If it is an insider, they have a lot to lose.

That is, there is significant skin in the game. But accusations of rape against celebrities? He’ll look at the Bauer situation. Dude was summarily kicked out of baseball over a claim where due to discovery it was determined the whole thing was a made up exhortation scheme and the AP still refuses to name the perp’s name because it is their policy not to release the name of accusers when it comes to sexual assault. The power these women wield is enormous and the downsides are relatively narrow — especially if they don’t leave obvious incriminating evidence like the claimant in the Bauer situation.

I guess what I’m saying is I wouldn’t simply take the word of Samsun that Sony TVs are bad.

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