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.

Here is the problem.

I hate my outgroup. You know I hate my outgroup. I know you know I hate my outgroup. The circle is complete. There is no more charity to be had. The rules here are clear, you are not allowed to nakedly hate your outgroup.

So to comply with the rules, I have to hide my power level. In my above post, I'm trying to be as narrow, as evidence based, and as charitable as I can. I'm talking about the narrow category of the prompt "Why are there sex pest in feminism?" It should be understood from the prompt I am discussing the subset of feminist that are sex pest. Likewise, when I'm talking about the abuse victims (funny how you omitted that in summarizing my thought as "hollowed out p-zombies"), I'm talking not talking about all feminist, I'm talking about how abuse damages victims.

But... you know. You know I hate feminist more than the plain read of my comment would indicate. You know my feelings towards them extend well beyond the scope of what I actually said. Does it really matter if I say or not, if we both know I think it?

I mean, according to rules, if the rules matter, it does. But increasingly the attitude from the mods that enforce the rules is that it doesn't. All I hear repeatedly is "Stop it, you know what you are doing". And all I can figure that means anymore, is that I continue to struggle to participate, despite feeling deep in my heart a hate I'm not allowed to express, but which everybody knows I have. It needs not be expressed anymore, it's just assumed, and so everything I say is a rules violation.

It might not even be wrong.

It's been stated before that the amount of evidence you provide should be proportionate to how inflammatory your claim is.

One sentence post that says "I hate feminists" = low effort and inflammatory = not ok.

Thorough, thoughtful post that offers "I hate feminists" as a thesis statement and goes into the history of how you developed this attitude, how you contextualize it in broader culture war discussions, what you think this means for the possibility of future dialogue etc. - maybe ok?

Hate is a part of life, it's a natural emotion, and I would hope that TheMotte's rules recognize the possibility of discussing hate in a constructive and civil manner. But I don't know if all the mods agree and maybe some of them would just think that the word "hate" was a violation of the rules on tone no matter what.

This might be relevant to your interests.

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