site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   31472 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 7, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

but it might be because you think they are mentally ill or because you think they are evil.

You think my post would have been better if I called them evil or mentally ill? I didn't say any of that because I don't know, and it doesn't matter. The factual part "these people are driving trans changes because they have an eunuch fetish" is enough to stand, and be discussed on it's own.

I certainly didn't get you were poking fun at conspiracy deniers.

A common trope in dismissing conspiracy theories is calling everything a coincidence, and dismissing any personal connections as playing "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon". The point of the other rhetorical flourish - "well, I suppose" - was exactly the point of making fun of that, right up until you see the SOC document literally citing the fetish forum.

Which is why stating it outright somewhere would be helpful, even if you have to keep the rhetorical flourishes. Just a suggestion.

Duly noted, but it sounds like you got exactly what I was saying, it's just that you were expecting there's more to it.

I think your post would have been better if I was sure what your point was. What specifically was the conspiracy you are making fun of the deniers denying. Who denied it and when? What is the light that would come from the discussion?

I think your post would have been better if I was sure what your point was.

Yes I got that part. Sadly, I couldn't know ahead of time what you'll be able to catch, and what you'd find confusing.

What specifically was the conspiracy you are making fun of the deniers denying.

Any one that's plausible but lacking smoking-gun evidence. The one that's the most analogous is woke entryism into institutions with cultural influence, but any one will do - from Epstein running a child-prostituion Ponzi Scheme (before the evidence was released), Epstein not killing himself, to the COVID lab leak or Big Pharma collaborating to discredit ivermectin.

Who denied it and when?

What would be accomplished by listing all the times and places a specific conspiracy theory was denied?

What is the light that would come from the discussion?

  • That to move past shady thinking, I think we need to stop dismissing any hypothesis just because it's a conspiracy theory.

  • That we might need to increase scrutiny on our institutions, because they seem the be very vulnerable to manipulation by malicious actors.

What would be accomplished by listing all the times and places a specific conspiracy theory was denied?

Well if you want us to talk about whether it is a conspiracy or not (as opposed to just making fun of people who think it is) then that would be helpful, no? If your post was just to make fun of those people, then what is it's value here?

If your point is

That to move past shady thinking, I think we need to stop dismissing any hypothesis just because it's a conspiracy theory.

That we might need to increase scrutiny on our institutions, because they seem the be very vulnerable to manipulation by malicious actors.

Then why not just say that specifically? Those are good points and worth discussing. But you didn't actually mention those things in your original post. Are the eunuchs malicious actors? Are they manipulating the situation? If those are your factual claims then make your point around that. But your post doesn't say that. It kind of gives a wink wink nudge nudge in that direction. Which we should avoid in my opinion here, at least.

Is your position that these people are malicious actors? If so just say so. If not, then say that instead.

Well if you want us to talk about whether it is a conspiracy or not (as opposed to just making fun of people who think it is) then that would be helpful, no?

No? I don't see how citing every time someone denied these conspiracies would bring anything to the discussion.

Then why not just say that specifically?

The story in itself is pretty out there. I wanted to see what people think of it, before moving on to any big-picture ultimate conclusions I might have about it.

Is your position that these people are malicious actors?

Malicious in the sense that they're driven by their fetish rather than finding the best standards of care, yes.

If so just say so. If not, then say that instead.

Ok, and from my side: if something in what I wrote is unclear, can you just ask what I meant, so I can clarify it, instead of complaining about the original post 9 comment levels deep?

Ok, and from my side: if something in what I wrote is unclear, can you just ask what I meant, so I can clarify it, instead of complaining about the original post 9 comment levels deep?

Yes and no. My issue is I see a lot of posts like this where rhetoric is pushed over clarity, and I think it is detrimental to the sub as a whole. Yours is one example. I am more interested in what's driving the (from my pov) meta changes to how people are writing after our switch over. No offense intended to you at all however. But for that to change, posts have to be engaged with at a meta level, if that makes sense.

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