site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   36610 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.

This is a shaming tactic: "If you disagree with me on this issue then you are a knowing accessory to child abuse." It's unworthy of this forum, and it's an example of a style of rhetoric that would not be acceptable here if it was coming from someone on the left.

As I recall, the way moderators here have handled inflammatory opinions in the past is to require them to use the minimum level of heat necessary to get their point across. So I think the first hurdle to be crossed in saying this comment was outside the normal standard of behavior here would be to describe how this could have been presented in a less inflammatory manner.

"Providing sexual material to children is preparing them for abuse, you're providing sexual material to children, therefore you are preparing children for abuse" is not a nice thing to say but I have trouble thinking of a way to make it nicer without eliding the opinion it is trying to express.

How do you think naraburns' comments could have been said in a nicer way?

Providing sexual material to children is preparing them for abuse,

There is a difference between saying 1) Providing sexual material to children is dangerous because it renders them vulnerable to abuse; and 2) Providing sexual material to children is done for the purpose of making them vulnerable to abuse,

Calling someone a pedophile implies #2, and it is the accusation of intentionally harming children which makes the claim problematic.

Absolutely, there's a big difference between the two. But I believe it's clear that naraburns was doing 1), with perhaps a side of "and not knowing this will cause them to be vulnerable to abuse is willful ignorance". I won't clutter the thread repeating it but I've put my explanation of why I think this in response to gemmaem's post below.

Well, naraburns also says that his use of the term was an "unforced error"

And, besides, I was referring to your claim, not naraburn's.

The section of my post you quoted from was my summary of naraburns' claims, not a claim I'm making.

When I want to talk about racism, I'm not held to the standard you're asking me to hold naraburns to. I don't get to call people "racist" just because they meet my definition of racism. I have to be very, very careful about using the word at all, and avoid the more disputed definitions thereof. If I can't say it in a nicer way than that, then I just don't get to say it.

With that said, you have yourself provided a less inflammatory way to say it:

"Providing sexual material to children is preparing them for abuse, you're providing sexual material to children, therefore you are preparing children for abuse."

This refrains from using a disputed definition and is therefore much clearer in what it is saying. This makes it easier to respond to, because the assumptions are laid out and can be openly discussed. It's a much better comment, with much higher standards of expression.

As an aside, I think that you can probably do the same thing yourself for racism. I know that I've had a fair amount of conversations on whether a particular racially-motivated act of discrimination was racist or not, and when I've sensed some confusion around the term, I've gotten good responses by explicitly recognizing and disclaiming some popular alternate definitions of the word, and emphasized that I was referring to racially-motivated acts of discrimination.

If the issue is the clarity, I think it it important to note that naraburns provided details on what he means by "groomer" a post before the one with the text you quoted. And he mentions in his post that he's using the definition from upthread.

All I did to make that sentence is take the comment you quoted from

Making such materials [books containing drawings of sex] available to children is textbook grooming. Do you honestly advocate for distributing such things to children? If so, you're a groomer, too, by every definition offered in the thread thus far.

But unpacked "groomer" using the definition in his previous comment that PmMeClassicMemes had just replied to.

By contrast, "grooming" describes the act of preparing a child to be abused or exploited, and some common known approaches to grooming are: asking children explicit questions about their sex and sexuality, exposing children to sexually explicit materials, and encouraging children to keep secrets or distance themselves from their parents.

Taken together, I think these clearly get to about the same place as what I wrote does.

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