site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   32475 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 24, 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.

You can find red paleontology enthusiasts they’re called creation scientists. You can disagree with them but basically all high-human-capital red tribers are practicing Christians(as elsewhere, secularization is a bottom up thing) and the pressure for talented individuals with nothing else to do(and I suspect the job market for grad degrees in paleontology is not good) to work in YEC apologism or research is high.

You can find red paleontology enthusiasts they’re called creation scientists.

That parses a bit like "you can find spiritual astronomy enthusiasts, they are called astrologers".

YEC goes with paleontology about as well as geocentrism goes with astronomy. I mean sure, there are likely people with a mainstream degree in paleontology who found work giving YEC's a veneer of respectability, but I am doubtful if in their heart of hearts, they actually believe in YEC. It would be like someone studying electrical engineering and then denying that electrical currents exist -- sure it might happen, but I would call that person either deceitful or insane.

Did you think coming up with epicycles was easy work? The actual job of a creation scientist is to introduce epicycles so that otherwise educated and scientifically literate people can believe it with less dissonance. This is necessarily a job for a knowledgeable and intelligent true believer.

Ken Ham's audience has a negligible chance of listening to Dawkins instead. Apologetics doesn't exist to argue against evolution. It exists to make creationism give equivalent results. This requires a dedicated person who understands both theories very well, and who has the theory of mind to explain things in a YEC-friendly way.

IIRC there was a funny thing where YEC paleontologists/geologists were presenting posters and research with timescales measured in mya despite the universe, like, not existing at the time (according to them).

(as elsewhere, secularization is a bottom up thing)

It is your belief that a certain zealotry is necessary to motivate achievement?

I believe that functioning people generally like belonging to institutions, even small ones, and churches fit the bill for the red tribe. I also believe that practicing Christianity makes people better, practicing Christians are generally a good influence on each other and this attracts human capital.

The equivalent might be something like 'nearly all high-functioning blue tribers obtain a college degree'.

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