site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   30750 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You are still describing following the rules as not following the rules.

Saying that the rules are divine commands and then trying to hack them so that they are effectively rendered null is not believing in the rules.

I'd like to know how you define "effectively rendered null". Just because a rule is easy to follow doesn't make it null.

I'd also point out that plenty of religions do this sort of thing. Using annullments because your religion doesn't allow divorce, for instance.

I'm describing not following the rules as not following the rules. Men introducing exceptions to divinely ordained rules and then following those rules is very much breaking the rules.

Just because a rule is easy to follow doesn't make it null.

That would be fine if you were still actually following it. But the entire point of eruv is making it so you don't have to follow onerous rules anymore because they are hard.

If you think that the division between public and private is entirely nonsense and a misinterpretation of the law, that's fine. Totally legitimate.

If you think that the traditional view is correct in its interpretation of shabbat, that's fine. Entirely consistent and expected.

But what isn't legitimate is coming up with an interpretation of the law, deciding that is sacrosanct and correct, and then, later on when that process turns out to be onerous, deciding that God really views some string wrapped around a space of, really, any size, as a way to entirely neutralize that interpretation of the law. Divinely ordained deontology that you introduce weird little hacks into is pure nonsense. Are you supposed to take things out into public or not? And if it's really about the spirit of the law, not the letter (not really something I have ever heard from a Talmudic scholar, but let's say for the sake of argument), then the line isn't necessary at all.

I'd also point out that plenty of religions do this sort of thing.

And if you'd said that you prefer your religion's weird nonsense over other religion's nonsense, that would be one thing. Requiring Hail Marys as penitence is entirely nonsensical, sure. But you acted like your religion is different. It's not. You're just used to it.

Are you supposed to take things out into public or not?

The rule isn't about "taking things out in public". It's a specific set of requirements. "Take things out in public" is an approximation.

But you acted like your religion is different. It's not. You're just used to it.

I'm not actually religious and don't follow the eruv. (I do know what it is, of course.)

And there's a difference between "isn't a legitimate interpretation of the law" and "isn't logically coherent". I can understand an eruv. I can't understand the Trinity, and I don't believe there's any substance there for me to understand.

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