site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   34791 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.

Casting suggestions? Who is "Hollywood ugly" enough for the Caroline Ellison part?

I don't think she's ugly so much as just goofy looking, but my first thought was to put Maisie Williams in some BCGs

Maisie is good too, but a bit too pretty. Though I guess they could ugly her down for it. Caroline Ellison is plain; she has thin, fine hair which she really should cut shorter, her face is small and underdeveloped, she has a not very tall, average body (she's not fat but she's not curvy in the hourglass lingerie model style) and those glasses are not doing her any favours for the shape of her face. She's not ugly but she is plain.

She has thin, fine hair which she really should cut shorter

Bad take IMO, but I’m a sucker for girls with long hair.

Long hair suits thicker hair. When your hair is as fine as hers, it ends up looking stringy as here. Cutting it shorter (even shoulder-length) lets it 'thicken' up and would go better with her shape of face. She would look a lot better with this kind of styling.

I do feel bad judging her on her looks, because outside of "Okay Sam, my on/off boyfriend, you want me to be in charge of a trading firm? That you basically use for shuffling money around like a three card trick? Despite the fact that my sum total of experience is 'worked my first and only job to date in a quant firm for six months'? And all I have to do is sign off on whatever you tell me to sign off on? Sounds great!", she may be a nice and even smart person.

But I think most people are wondering about "This guy was allegedly worth billions and this is the type of woman he was dating?" when it comes to her. I mean, I can understand why they would be in a relationship before the whole "making billions upon billions" thing took off, but in general you then dump the first wife and upgrade to a hotter, younger, trophy piece of arm candy. Maybe Bankman-Fried just didn't know that many women, but I'm sure there were plenty of hot Bahamian women who would have been delighted to date a rich guy. It does look like they all just stayed in their own little bubble in the compound, which is part of the entire downfall.

Might have something to do with it being public knowledge now that she's already into freaky shit?

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