site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   36582 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 24, 2022

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.

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

People who diss the US usually add disclaimers about how they're not really dissing the US. Remember everyone claiming "we support our troops"?

Opposing the national anthem is a blunt instrument that sends a message about the USA in general. And claiming that your message is not meant to communicate what, among everyone else, it would be meant to communicate, is just dishonest. Meanings aren't something you can rewrite on your own.

And I'm skeptical, anyway, that someone who sends a broad message and adds "I don't really mean this broad message" is sincere about it, rather than just going for plausible deniability.

And I'm skeptical, anyway, that someone who sends a broad message and adds "I don't really mean this broad message" is sincere about it, rather than just going for plausible deniability.

Someone recommended this forum, but man is it a disappointment. Top of this thead is don’t put words in people’s mouths. You’re not a mind reader, and Griner was plain about her views of the country as a whole. Unless, again, there’s some other statement of hers, which I fully leave open the possibility.

  • -21

Someone recommended this forum, but man is it a disappointment.

Please don't do this. You're arguing with an individual on a forum specifically open to working out weird and often wrong theories. If the poster's theory is bad attack the theory, not the forum. There's no promise on the op that every argument you run into is a winner.

Don’t worry, this is my last post here. There’s little buy in to the terms, and it’s not just that poster.

  • -18

That’s rather tangential to Griner, but yes, I do.

And I also remember how things like being against undertaking a war of nation building in a mountainous, tribal backwater of a country already known as “the Graveyard of Empires” was spun to be an attack on the troops. Even if you thought the government should stop paying private contractors more than they pay the troops, increase troop pay, fix and adequately fund the VA, and demand politicians not make arrogant and stupid plans that get troops killed, while noting that the supermajority of our servicemen bore no blame in the military failures of the last 20 years. I one-hundred percent remember people trying to conflate criticism of politicians with criticism of the troops for very cynical reasons.

And I do remember the impulse to add a disclaimer that we do, in fact, support our troops, because of the above.

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