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.

people already think he's a cheater.

He is a cheater. Did it when he was 12 and dumb, okay, first time offence. Did it again when he was 17, still dumb but he should have known better. And now, as you say, he's 19, pulled off a spectacular upset, and because he was stupid enough to do it again when he was 17, a whole lot of people think he cheated this time again.

And maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but the weighting due to the two previous instances of cheating are leaning towards "did it again". This is one reason why cheating, or lying is bad - even being a cynic about it, only bad if you're caught - because now you are a cheater or a liar, and now people will be inclined to believe accusations of "he cheated/lied yet again" because of prior experience.

A man is not guilty without proof. Doesn't matter if the whole world thinks he cheated if he is on camera showing that he is playing a fair game.

There are only two theories left, anal vibrating beads, or previously knowing the prep game. Anal beads is almost certainly not the case. Previously knowing the prep game has a small chance but it would only be the case if someone from Magnus inner circle gave up the goods beforehand. If no mole is found in Magnus circle then we can assume that no cheating took place.

A man is not guilty without proof.

That is true, and a principle I don't want to see tossed.

On the other hand - let us say there are two people participating in an event, Honest Hank who has never, ever, done anything wrong in his life ever, and Lying Larry who nobody would trust as far as they could throw him.

It is discovered that someone has cheated in this event. Now, who is it more likely that people will suspect - Hank or Larry? Sure, Larry could be innocent and it could be Hank who is the guilty party this time. But you can't say it's unreasonable that people would suspect Larry first off.

If you don't want the reputation of being a cheating cheater who cheats, don't cheat.

What you said makes sense in the scenario you created.

A man is not guilty without proof

Incorrect. It is perfectly possible for both of the following statements to be true...

  • Player A cheated

  • Player B is unable to prove that Player A cheated.

...and this is why things like established patterns of behavior matter.

And innocent until proven guilty matters to make sure you do not get the wrong guy based on your opinions.

In their individual lives yes, to pass judgement onto others outside their direct experience no.

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