site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   31478 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.

No need to change my approach: you've already explained more than enough about your reaction to the evidence. All that's left is waiting for the "and it's good!" step in a few months.

It's amazing that the same tactics work for you over and over again, but why change what works.

I've explained exactly nothing about my reaction to the evidence. The only thing I have talked about is my critique of how the point was made. You are familiar with the Motte yes? This is very much our bread and butter. Nearly any point can be made, but we have rules and a culture around HOW the point should be made.

It should be plain, it should be written as is people you disagree with are reading and you WANT them to read. It should avoid Boo Outgrouping and should optimize for light and not heat etc. etc.

Could you help him rewrite his post so that people with a fetish for castrating children felt more included in the conversation? That would be a very helpful and productive alternative to complaining about his tone, and double as active engagement with the evidence.

You two could even do an adversarial collaboration on it!

Your conduct throughout this thread has been terrible, and you have collected an impressive number of reports by being an antagonistic jerk.

This not being the first, second, or third time you've been warned, you're getting a three-day ban.

ETA: Increased to 7 days for insults via DM.

What do you think I am doing, in engaging with a topic I otherwise don't care about? I am offering suggestions (which the OP is free to ignore!) about why his approach came across as partisan and didn't I think have the impact he intended. I am much more interested in the meta ideas of how we should communicate in this space than I am in his choice of topic.

I'm far from the only one to have noticed this issue and not even just on this side of the fence. Cultural norms are the most valuable part of this space in my opinion and the way to keep those going is through discussion and feedback on the part of Motteizens. I bear no ill will to the OP, I'm on a sub where we can discuss the The Jewish problem, HBD, Trans castration , furry fetishists and reasoned discussions about tax levels for a reason after all.

I'm not a progressive, even if I tend to represent them here, due to lack of voices.

why his approach came across as partisan

Well you know, call me a fascist Nazi, but if it's a matter of people with sexual fetishes about castrating minors getting to make policy, that will be used as recommendations by medical and government bodies, on surgical procedures that, in effect, castrate minors, then hell yeah I'm partisan on this one.

(Somebody better at grammar than me count up all the commas in that sentence and tell me if I came out right at the end).

It's absolutely ok to be partisan on pretty much any topic. Almost everyone is. But one of the thing that makes this space special is trying very much to write in as non-partisan a way as possible in my opinion.

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