site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   16966 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 6, 2025

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.

Okay, well I think you're wrong in thinking that the charity rule means posting baileys (leftists don't care about child rape) instead of mottes (policies that leftists champion lead to child rape) is acceptable. This site is...literally called the Motte. "It's obvious this is what I'm saying" is literally the shady thinking we are trying to avoid. It's the exact same poor debating as what antifa is doing.

I've written before that I don't think such writing is good. I honestly think it's borderline in terms of rulebreaking, since it's clearly meant to create more heat than light. Does it cross some imaginary threshold from "acceptable" to "unacceptable?" You think it does, I think it doesn't. C'est la vie.

I mean, this debate started because you said "I don't find either of your examples to be anywhere near the level of dunking or the vitriol that's displayed by antifa here because the question of whether or not leftists care about child rape isn't pleasant, nor is it nice, but it's a real question that can be honestly, in good faith, answered as "No." because when I was a younger, more naive leftist, I genuinely didn't care about child rape or other potential negative consequences of unmitigated immigration." therefore the comment here by antifa, and IME the occasional leftists who come in "hot" here, are basically pure shit with perhaps some bones and ligaments there, whereas the comments left by right-wingers are not."

I responded with, "I don't think you can answer "do leftists care about child rape" with your own anecdotal evidence, because anecdotal evidence is bad on its own. Do you agree that anecdotal evidence is bad on its own, and do you have other evidence that "leftists don't care about child rape" other than anecdotal?"

This is such an obvious strawman - the strawman is directly beneath the statement it's strawmanning! - that I wonder why you do this in a comment that's specifically complaining about the quality of debate here. Note the parts I bolded. The first part is a fairly accurate mostly-quoted but partially edited synopsis of my comment. The second is your response to my comment where you seemed to claim that I was using my anecdote to answer the question "Do leftists care about child rape," when the above paragraph, particularly the bolded part, does nothing of the sort. What the anecdote does is answer the question, "Is it reasonable to ask the question, 'Do leftists care about child rape,' and it is it reasonable to answer it with 'No?'" These are 2 fundamentally different questions, and it's either careless or dishonest to elide between the 2.

You responded with "I'm not saying every leftist doesn't care about child rape, I'm saying leftists would absolutely, 100%, honestly, in good faith believe they care about it, but their lack of curiosity in actually checking if their beliefs about reality are correct shows that their belief about what they care about is incorrect. And, additionally, my anecdotal evidence stands because I was no means being an unusual leftist as someone who openly said that, if allowing in poor people that Republicans dislike into our country also means that some of those poor people will do things like rape more children in the USA, then so be it."

In this one, I just bolded the words you added to your synopsis of my comment that fundamentally change the meaning of my comment. I never once claimed that my anecdote was evidence of anything. It was merely context for why I believed that the question and answer we're discussing now are reasonable things to say in that discussion. At best, you can say that it's evidence that this question is a reasonable one to ask, though I wouldn't even characterize it as such (indeed, I've never once used the word "evidence" to describe my anecdote, nor have I used it to support any other notion in a "because" or "therefore" fashion).

I responded with, "Okay, but why are you not saying what you think then? There is a world of difference between "leftists don't care about child rape" and "leftists are unwilling to look at the true ramifications of their policies and therefore don't actually care about the results". Additionally, you haven't responded to my claim anecdotal evidence on its own isn't valid, much less my question if you have any other evidence than that, you just repeated your anecdote, which I assume means you think that type of data is valid and you don't have that evidence, but then can you say that out loud so we can move on?"

Where did you ask this question? Please point it out to me, because I couldn't find it. I am saying what I think. Where am I not saying what I think?

And my contention is that there is no world of difference between "leftists don't care about child rape" and "leftists are unwilling to look at the true ramifications of their policies and therefore don't actually care about the results." In fact, I think there's basically no substantive difference, it's a matter of tone. And the tone in the former is bad, something we should have less of here. I don't think it's some egregiously bad thing, though.

I didn't respond to your claim about anecdotal evidence not being valid because your claim had nothing to do with my own claim. You are the one who decided to derail this conversation by putting words into my mouth and then demanding that I defend those words I didn't say.

If you want to complain about debate fallacies driving away leftists from here, don't be a leftist who introduces debate fallacies while debating the case, because it demonstrates that, at least for one leftist, debate fallacies are no objection to contributing to this place.

I wish again I could properly express my sincerity when I say your-this response is very much in line with the kind of conversation I am looking for and I am verily satisfied and optimistic. I made specific claims and feel you are directly addressing them, therefore listening to me, and continuing the conversation yadda yadda. That's the best anyone can ask for on this forum.

"You think it does, I think it doesn't. C'est la vie."

and

"This is an obvious strawman"

and

"the question, "Is it reasonable to ask the question, 'Do leftists care about child rape,' and it is it reasonable to answer it with 'No?'" and these are 2 fundamentally different questions and you are eliding between the two."

and

"the words you added to your synopsis of my comment fundamentally changed the meaning of my comment."

and

"Where did you ask this question?"

are all elements of your response I think are valid and worth time and attention to answer because they are, at least to me, objective rigor and commentary. Unfortunately, I just don't want to do that right now and likely won't in the future if I don't now in this response. And honestly, if I'm not willing to take the time to respond to your points the way I want you to respond to mine then the onus is on me to concede and take responsibility for inappropriately closing the argument. My apologies for the frustration, -50 points to house Leftist, I shouldn't start debates if I'm not willing to see them to the end. Since I am not responding to your points, I think it is fair to say you are correct. I dunno, if I say, "Cats don't drink milk." and you say, "Yes they do." and then I run off without responding, the winner that's left is "yes they do" unless I come back and pick back up the argument.

Anyway, long-winded way of thank you for responding, sorry, I'm wrong, and trying my best to point big arrow signs that say "THIS IS WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR".

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