site banner
PaperclipPerfector  21d ago (text post)   26711 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 30, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I missed the part where politicians have to implement the voter's wishes as long as they're formulated correctly. For that matter, I even missed the part where voters even get to formulate wishes, rather than politicians making promises that they later refuse to keep.

politicians making promises that they later refuse to keep

Is there any research on the performance of subsequent cohorts of politicians when their predecessors were hanged or guillotined for poor performance?

when their predecessors were hung...for poor performance....

I doubt that that has ever happened, given that tapestries are seldom elected to high office. Hanged, on the other hand....

Thank you for sending me down a bit of a rabbit hole, I've fixed it.

Though I now believe their effigies should be hung, not hanged.

He just talkin' bout big dicked losers, fam.

The problem is that this depends on reliably appointing someone trustworthy and competent to a position of extreme power, at which point you could just use that mechanism to appoint officials.

"In this country, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others."

The performance of the Royal Navy did improve after Admiral Byng was shot. I remember reading an academic article making the argument that this was causal - that the knowledge that you would have to fight even against the odds changed the way that captains trained their crews and planned engagements. One difference the article pointed out was that British doctrine favoured engaging from upwind (which gives you superior mobility and allows you to determine the pace of the engagement) whereas French doctrine favoured engaging from downwind (which gives you better chances of successfully running away if that is what you later decide to do).

There is also the point that shooting Admiral Byng made harsh naval discipline a lot more tolerable to the men who suffered it.

"Nothing is so good for the morale of the troops as occasionally to see a dead general".

Field Marshal Slim

"It makes no difference which side the general is on".

Unknown British Soldier

I remember reading an academic article making the argument that this was causal - that the knowledge that you would have to fight even against the odds changed the way that captains trained their crews and planned engagements.

"Never Excuse as Stupidity" by @KulakRevolt?

I don’t mind his brand of midwit autism, but it is always surprising to me that his poor writing and lukewarm NrX observations have garnered 15,000 substack subscribers. Good for him.

And here I thought I was alone. He's long on chest thumping rhetoric and cherry picking and short on defensible positions. I wasn't impressed with his writing when he posted here (although I often share his feelings), so I'm confused about his substack success. The "catgirl" shtick is IMO distasteful, but reading his comments a while back, there are at least a handful of folks who think he's really that OF girl in his profile pic, so that probably helps. Anyway, "don't hate the playa, hate the game" as they say.

He says spicy shit while occasionally having a point and he's good at twitter. I can't personally read his long form writing but it doesn't shock me that some can.

He described his Twitter technique once. Basically:

  1. find a defensible but verboten position.
  2. Write chest-thumping rhetoric. Collect upvotes as they occur.
  3. When a leftist ‘fact-checks’ you, fact-check them right back again harder.

In short, lure in your opponents by looking weak, then muller them by actually being strong. You score by getting lots of attention for your theory, and you score again by successfully overcoming challengers.

My recollection is that (3) is actually just more of (2).

More comments

No - it was an academic journal article. But based on the free intro, Kulak is making the same point.

It's an interesting situation. On the one hand, I can see that being absolutely correct. On the other, my reading of Admiral Byng's court-martial is that he was absolutely hung out to dry for political reasons. Which makes for an interesting social/moral dilemma: if you were involved in the process back then, and knew (or had an idea of) the beneficial effects it would have on the future navy, would you choose to have an innocent man executed?

I often wonder this about the justice system in general: if it means placating the mob, is it sometimes worth committing an act of injustice to a single individual?

I often wonder this about the justice system in general: if it means placating the mob, is it sometimes worth committing an act of injustice to a single individual?

The Ones Who Walk Away From Rittenhouse

More seriously, I think the general framing of this question—not mob placation necessarily, but “good” consequences as a potential reason to bend or break the rules—gets at the heart of act-utilitarianism vs. rule-utilitarianism, as well as deontology and other ethical schools. As for my opinion on the matter, fiat iustitia ruat cælum

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