site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   33233 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So are you saying that the majority of the male feminists you knew turned out to be sex pests?

No they all stopped calling themselves feminists. One of them told me it was specifically because of the mfsp issue. But there was a joke at the time I'm sure you've heard - "of course I'm a feminist, I want to get laid bro". That joke stopped getting play shortly after the mfsp issue arose.

I just wrote about all the theories that both feminists and anti-feminists present as to why "all these male feminists keep turning out to be sex pests," and why I think they are basically Chinese robber fallacies. Unless you have some stronger evidence. It's not about my biases (because you are wrong about them). It's because there isn't really any evidence that I am aware of that male feminists are more likely to be sex pests (or that sex pests are more likely to be male feminists).

You wrote:

I doubt male feminists are more (or less) predatory in general, though. It's just when a particularly famous one (like Neil Gaiman or Joss Whedon) is found sticking his dick in someone he shouldn't have, it's broadcast widely because (a) they're famous! and (b) given their loud, performative feminism, which annoys anti-feminists, of course the latter will delight in crowing about their downfall and holding them up as a "typical" male feminist when in fact they are not.

That is the theory you put forward in the just so format. You have no evidence for it. Your biases led you to proclaim that "given their loud, performative feminism, of course the latter will delight in crowing about their downfall etc." with the exact same weight and force as the anti-woke said "of course they're predators etc." You start from the position the number of mfsps don't exceed the number of regular sps and once you hit upon an answer that flatters your biases you stop, just like the anti-woke do when they go 'of course he was just a predator the whole time'.

I thought that was the point you were making originally, that we're all held hostage to our biases, by setting up a link between flattered biases and of course arguments and then using that exact same structure in earnest, like an irony double dip or something. But if you didn't do it on purpose to make a point, then by your own reasoning either your biases are flattered by that of course argument or the first half of your post is just nonsense with no explanatory power. I don't think that's the case. If you would like to lay out your biases I can reassess, but if you are going to continue to be vague and secretive about them for no reason I assume I'm right.

You quoted my point. Yes, most people choose a narrative that flatters their biases. My biases are that male feminists are mostly performative but many are sincere, and anti-wokes tend to rely on Chinese robber fallacies.

There is, imo, no evidence to support the theory that male feminists are more likely to be sex pests, nor any evidence that they are less likely.

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