site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   34788 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You said you had no explicit rules and then you said you did. You are just floundering around the definition of explicit as if mod rulings aren't rules.

I said nothing about crypto.

That's correct, I said something about crypto since the person getting modded was commenting on crypto and not Hitler or white nationalism.

If someone puts 1488 in their username we're not going to ask them "Do you mean that in a crypto way or a Nazi way?" and then allow it if it's the former and ban it if it's the latter. Let's be serious now.

The example you gave about 'SuckItWhitey' came with the caveat that "if" the person was being racist against whites then they would "probably" get modded. If the caveat was not important or at all relevant, why add it?

We apply the same general rule we apply to posts (if you couldn't say it in a post, you probably can't say it in a username).

Which is why I explicitly asked about 1488 and its connotations and noted that there was wiggle room there.

We are not going to try to enumerate every offensive or inflammatory username someone might come up with. Codifying it like that just invites people to try to game the rules and then squawk indignantly that we didn't explicitly say that you can't phonetically transliterate "I Hate Jews" in Cyrillic or whatever.

No one asked you to.

Now, let's be honest, my dude. You're upset because you want to let your Nazifreak flag fly and you're being reminded that this is not an "anything goes" zone just because we give a very wide latitude to freedom of expression. That wide latitude doesn't mean pretending that each and every viewpoint in treated as exactly equal and morally neutral, and if you would like to read that as "The mod team is not particularly sympathetic to Nazis," you're right. We actually had a mod discussion about what we'd do if someone posted outright "I'm a Nazi and Hitler did nothing wrong," and honestly I'm not sure we came to a unanimous consensus. We allow people to advocate white nationalism and Holocaust denial, as you are well aware. But if your disgruntlement here is that we're not inclined to let Nazis make themselves comfortable here, even if we don't instaban them, continue to be disgruntled.

I'm not disgruntled, I'm content with you admitting the point I was making.

You said you had no explicit rules and then you said you did.

This is false.

The example you gave about 'SuckItWhitey' came with the caveat that "if" the person was being racist against whites then they would "probably" get modded. If the caveat was not important or at all relevant, why add it?

I made no such caveat. I didn't say SuckItWhitey would be disallowed "if" it was racist and allowed if somehow we decided it wasn't.

This is typical of your argumentation. Trying to subtly reword what was said and claiming a different statement was made than what you were very plainly told.

I'm not disgruntled, I'm content with you admitting the point I was making.

A pity that you must remain discontent, then.

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