site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   35490 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Okay, you're back to baiting. You've been told about this before. A lot.

I'm kind of torn on what to do here. You're a long-timer who many people enjoy reading, you have interesting perspectives, and you've earned one (but only one) AAQC.

On the other hand, you seem to always just be biding your time until you can unload more sneering at "mayos." I am not fond of people who are only here to shit on the people they hold in contempt, who are just itching to let those people know how much contempt they hold them in.

You are overall someone who probably is a net positive here, as annoying as you are, but you've got a long rap sheet, and the last few bans have been of increasing length, with notes that this is your "final warning" and you probably deserve a permaban next time. In fact, at one point you were permabanned but enough members spoke up in your favor that we reduced it to 20 days.

That was four bans ago.

Most people would have been permabanned by now. You probably should be permabanned. You do seem to have a pattern of toning it down for a while after you return from a ban, but you don't really learn your lesson, because the seething contempt is always boiling just below the surface.

Against my better judgment, I'm only banning you for 90 days. (That was your last ban length also.) This comment in itself was pretty mild, it's just that it's the kind of comment you make over and over and over again every time you think you can get away with some more baiting.

Next time will probably depend on which mod deals with you, but I will have no mercy.

ETA: Post-ban editing to whine about the ban IMO deserves a permaban, but I'll throw it to the other mods to decide if they want to shorten it.

Really proving the point of my statement with that ban.

Dude, accusing me of all people here of feeling some sort of white ethnic defensiveness is both ridiculous and proves you just meant to insult people. I don't care if you think I, personally, am "mid" because of my mayo pallor, but you are not allowed to just throw generalized insults at your racial outgroup.

Had I said blacks as a race are mid nobody would have raised even a peep

You know this is not true. People say shit about whites, blacks, Jews, and Indians all the time here, but just dumping on an entire race because you want to express your contempt has always been modded.

Another (probably irrelevant) plea for some degree of clemency when it comes to BC, if only because while provocative he adds some interesting ideological diversity IMO. OTOH I recognise that being a mod is a thankless task and you've had to put up with him for longer than I've enjoyed him.

I think mods should either be AAQC-blind or make it explicit in the rules that if one has "good contributions", one can get away with blatant asking-for-it shitlording.

We have never been AAQC-blind and we've always been explicit that good contributors get more slack. The slack is finite, though. We've banned people with tons of AAQCs for repeated shitlording.

90 days is already very harsh, please do not permaban him.

Can't we reach a compromise in which he's not banned, but we're free to call him a Jeet?

This is the sort of diplomacy most international conflicts are sorely missing.

I like having BurdensomeCount around, and would be sad to see him banned.

My opinion probably doesn't count for all that much, but I like to think I'm one of the relatively more measured users here.

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