site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   24084 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 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.

Dang, I wish we had some sort of organization that would contextualize comments like that so that less-informed people (like me) could come to a better understanding of the world. Lol, like that would ever happen, right?

More seriously, inaccurate or incomplete news articles have always annoyed me. I like being informed, but sometimes article length limits, different focuses, or pure lack of skill means that news pieces don't have the information I want to know. It's not perfect, but I'll deal with what I have.

Strategically incomplete articles that use their own lack of rigour to say there's nothing to see are a pet peeve of mine. I know that it's impossible to prove that the reporter knew about that peace deal, but loudly focusing on a point of ignorance is hardly any better.

(Also: nobody is going to correct it. A healthy news ecosystem would have a way to get the true information to me, regardless of whether it came from a correction there or a counterargument from a rival.)

Strategically incomplete articles that use their own lack of rigour to say there's nothing to see are a pet peeve of mine. I know that it's impossible to prove that the reporter knew about that peace deal, but loudly focusing on a point of ignorance is hardly any better.

I disagree. It's actually significantly worse. A reporter has the responsibility to know these kinds of things. If they write a lie by omission because they're ignorant of what they're omitting, then they're failing in their duties, and they're doing so in a way that allows themselves to feel like they're not failing. If they consciously omitted something in an intentional effort to mislead the audience, then at least they'd be aware that they're being manipulative and dishonest and have to acknowledge that they're looking at a liar every time they look in the mirror. And maybe that could compel some sort of change in behavior due to how it makes them feel (though probably not). But if they leave themselves ignorant, then they can freely spread lies without ever believing that they're being anything less than entirely truthful.

Dang, I wish we had some sort of organization that would contextualize comments like that so that less-informed people (like me) could come to a better understanding of the world. Lol, like that would ever happen, right?

Is expecting this to turn into an ad for Ground News a sign that one spends too much time on Youtube? :/

I really wonder how they decide where to advertise. Like it cant be too political an audience, but it cant be uninterested in it either.

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