site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   17642 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 23, 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.

It’s like the white person version of playing one’s music loudly on public transportation. It’s a flex, finding pleasure in imposing yourself upon others, enjoying the discomfort of others, and daring others for a confrontation.

If anything, this argument makes me think differently about speakers-on-the-train guy. I had always assumed that it was a dominance display, but I suppose it entirely possible that they're just actually baffled that anyone would find it offensive. If I take my dog out to a park or a bar with a patio, I do not gain any flexing dominance pleasure and experience nothing but an eyeroll at people that are so deeply affronted by it. I'll grant that there are places that I don't think people should have dogs, but even there, I'm more annoyed by people that are histrionically frightened of dogs than I am by the guy that probably shouldn't have brought his dog into the convenient store.

Except pit bulls, of course. I despise pit bulls.

I'm more annoyed by people that are histrionically frightened of dogs

Obviously "histrionically" is doing a lot of work here, but I've come to realize that people's experience with dogs are very different. I have a friend whose phobia of dogs seemed strange to me, but she's from a more rural background, and over there dogs can form packs that are actually quite vicious, my hypoallergenic, and honestly kinda' lazy, mini-schnauzers are not representative of what dogs can be.

Yeah. I was raised in a family with pleasant pet dogs and I'm broadly pro-dog, but having been to parts of the world where dogs are either working animals or mangy strays I can understand why there's an aversion.

Except pit bulls, of course. I despise pit bulls.

Pit bulls are not dogs for inexperienced owners. There are people who can have pit bulls successfully- they discipline them, exercise them, follow common-sense guidance like feeding them in a bowl and not by hand, etc. Disproportionately these people do not want pits unless they have some practical need for them.

Even magnificently well trained pit bulls owned by responsible (pit ownership aside) dog owners who have experience with strong dogs - rottweilers, GSDs, etc - are liable to suddenly snap after years of being a loveable companion and maul a toddler or grandma to death, slaughter the other household pets like a wolf etc.

Were these pits raised by experienced and responsible owners from puppyhood? Almost every case of 'model dog owner suddenly mauled by pit', IIRC, was one where the dog had been raised in a dog fighting ring and obtained from a shelter(beasts should've been old yeller'd).

Pit bulls, like certain other breeds(and pits are not the worst offender here), are strong willed dogs and often fierce about what they want, with a potential for aggression. This renders them unsuitable for the vast majority of dog owners. There should be far fewer of them. But generally the 'he just suddenly snapped' narrative is BS and there were substantial warning signs and poor ownership practices.

The extreme statistical overrepresentation of pit bulls in fatal dog attacks, and the increase in these attacks in many places almost entirely in proportion with growth of the pit population, cannot be viably and holistically explained by differences in owner behavior alone.

I don't disagree with you. But most of these were 'rescue' pits(aka shelter pets). These animals should've been euthanized upon intake, and before the pit bull craze most of them didn't get adopted(I do not like this word for obtaining a pet, but it is what is in common use). Pits, like other breeds of their ilk, need to be placed with an experienced and disciplinarian owner at six to eight weeks or not become a family pet. Rednecks with dogs to git them hogs have no trouble with their hunting dogs as family pets- this is specifically a problem of terrible ownership and unadoptable animals.

Would you say the same with a lion? Obviously pit bulls are different than lions but at a certain point the animal is inherently unsafe

The park is an appropriate place to take a dog, provided it's leashed and doesn't piss or shit anywhere someone might step or slip in. Bar with an outdoor patio is more questionable, but still far better than the aforementioned airplanes, grocery stores, bars/restaurants in general (which usually don't have outdoor areas), especially if you don't let your dog upon a seat or table.

I'm more annoyed by people that are histrionically frightened of dogs than I am by the guy that probably shouldn't have brought his dog into the convenient store.

People don't choose their phobias. If I brought my emotional support anaconda into a restaurant, I'd understand if some people were histrionically uncomfortable—even if Luna, my gentle sweet velvet serpent, would never hurt a fly.

Except pit bulls, of course. I despise pit bulls.

Doggo racists of the world, unite!

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