site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35581 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think there is a small but significant portion of the universalist establishment that are intellectually dishonest meme warriors who are so caught up in the left-versus-right battle that they will lead cancel mobs against those who bring up counter-narrative evidence and "give ammo to the other side." These warriors will also aggressively spin former events -- so Mugabe's rise becomes the fault of a the racist whites who never brought education and civic training to Rhodesia, or something like that. That Mugabe's rise could have been prevented if Carter had thrown his full support behind Muzorewa is something that just gets memory holed. The rest of the universalist establishment just receives their narratives from the intellectual environment shaped by these meme warriors, and so either never learn about the disaster that happened, or the disaster is spun in such a way that they don't understand why it happened.

so caught up in the left-versus-right battle that they will lead cancel mobs against those who bring up counter-narrative evidence

From the examples I've seen, "intellectually dishonest" is too innocent. Was Stalin or Lenin intellectually dishonest? I don't think so, I think they wanted to kill the kulaks and said whatever they had to say to make it happen.

Same thing with Rhodesia, I think they just hate the idea of white colonists so much that they depose him in favour of the nastiest guy they can find. The country burning afterwards is superior to it continuing to be prosperous under Smith's leadership. It's also the same as Soros DAs who are no longer prosecuting criminals. They don't care about the criminals, their motivation is hatred for normal people who fall victim to the criminals.

I don’t have a good mental model of soros DA’s, or indeed the kind of people who support them, but ‘hate the victims of criminals’ doesn’t seem like a good explanation for bad policy- for one thing, almost none of the victims are white kulaks that they dislike, they’re mostly poor minorities.

The Soros DAs have been doing their policies long enough to observe that the effect is... more crime. They are therefore pursuing this is a goal. The only real choices are "they love crims" and "they hate the people the crims attack". I prefer the latter, because nobody loves crims.

They could also be willfully ignorant, or they could believe they’re accomplishing some other goal(say, racial equity) that is more important than crime control.

Frankly, ‘they hate crime victims’ is the least likely explanation. I do not claim to understand them, but I feel like we can safely say they aren’t pure evil because very few people are.

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