site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   30223 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.

Speaking of that guy, I saw he deleted his Twitter recently. Although he's still posting substack articles defending Letitia James's political prosecutions.

Although he's still posting substack articles defending Letitia James's political prosecutions.

I find that hard to believe.

Link?

this query of google: site:substack.com ymeskhout letitia

only found him arguing with some other substacker, but no article.

https://www.ymeskhout.com/p/intellectual-insecurities

And the follow-up: https://www.ymeskhout.com/p/npc-dialogue-trees

It's really weird autism. I the guy not aware of the whole misinformation censorship complex where Dems had USG fund 'independent' NGOs to pressure platforms to censor?

He's a lawyer making lawyer arguments, that's just how they work:
If something's not good for your case, never bring it up. If the prosecution mentions it, try to get it struck by the judge. If you can't get it struck, smear doubt all over it. If the evidence is impeccable, try to claim it doesn't matter anyway and should just be ignored.
If important evidence gets ignored to your benefit, that's just how the game is played, and the other side should have just gotten gud, scrub.

Do all that and you can turn the entire censorship issue into "why are you so hopped up about a discovery dispute?!"

Lawyers just can't stop using their courtroom/debatebro skills. They're too effective to put down.

You may have to fill me in.

Interestingly it doesn't seem to have been covered much or maybe I'm using wrong keywords in search.

Stanford Internet Observatory was one of these NGOs.

https://stanfordreview.org/stanfords-censorship-deceit-at-the-stanford-internet-observatory/

Mike Benz covered it in depth and maybe even broke the story. He's got a lot of info on it on his account.

https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1737489386244030932

Those are the ones, thanks. The links were on my desktop, and actually going to substack crashes this old phone.
I've gotta ask if I can get a password reset to login on some other device.

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