site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   45539 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 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.

106
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I encourage all young people to have at least 4-5 children. Having only 1-2 children is selfish and insufficient, failing to even replace the parents once the likelihood of a premature death, failure to find a mate, or the likelihood of taking an unsuitable mate (e.g., with incompatible sex organs) is taken under consideration. For this reason, 3 children should be considered the bare minimum for anyone with an interest in continuing society.

4 children is where the greater benefits of family begin to manifest in creating a sense of community, especially as the children age and create grandchildren. Being raised with many aunts, uncles, and cousins creates a lifelong sense of belonging. Children will smaller families sense the absence of their extended families yet do not know that of which they are being deprived. Many parents selfishly have only 1 or 2 children, not wanting to take on the challenges of larger families. They deprive themselves, their children, and their grandchildren of the benefits of a greater family community, and for what? To preserve their free time so they may pursue degenerate hobbies? To preserve their material wealth, which does nothing to nourish their souls?

They deprive themselves, their children, and their grandchildren of the benefits of a greater family community, and for what? To preserve their free time so they may pursue degenerate hobbies?

First, there're other ways to have a greater family community: I know a family who lives close to their cousins and has a good community with them, despite their being only two siblings.

Second, do you claim that all hobbies are degenerate? If not, can you substantiate the claim that most parents of <4 children are specifically pursuing degenerate hobbies?

(Third, before we think about having children, perhaps the dating market needs fixing. But yeah, that's another topic, however personal it might feel to me.)

Dude there are 8 billion people on a planet that can maybe support 2 billion long term. What are you even on about?

What makes you think that the planet can support only 2 billion long term? "Carrying capacity" is just a function of available technology. We can support much more than few centuries ago already. Long term ecological strain, global warming and so on are likewise, merely problems of engineering.

I agree for the most part. But at our current level of tech, things are seriously fucked up. Have you tried fishing? Nothing like it used to be.

Yeah, agree with that - but just in a practical sense - whatever there is good about having two children, you get twice that for four - more human experience! Plus, an increased chance of getting a good genetic diceroll.

As someone from a huge family, I think 4 is probably the sweet spot and 5 is probably great if you have the resources for it. 6 or more though, and the children can become ungovernable and the sheer space requirements are very large. If your older children were sufficiently conscientious, it may not be as bad.

How is that working out in Bangladesh?

Bangladesh is currently sub-replacement fertility.

Bangladesh< Strike /Nigeria. Regardless Bangladesh would be a lot better of with about 1/10th the people.

May I ask how long you would enjoy living in a society where year on year the economic decline from population loss is a net negative?

Would you be willing to support depopulation policies if you were informed 20 years from now it would see your income halve?

I ask this as a hypothetical ofcourse but I would be interested in your final response.

when populations decline incomes increase! More resources per person are available.

It was definitely true after the plague, but I'm not as certain it will remain true in societies with upside down population pyramids.

It is true of all societies. Fewer people = more resources per person. Once the oldies die off anyhow.

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