site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35524 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.

Afriad I only got as far as "The Department is committed to a consent-based approach to siting that enables broad participation and centers equity and environmental justice", but boy that sure reads like "taking all the study money and smearing it around political allies to do sociology studies and learning the ancient nuclear engineering wisdom of the Waquampa tribe"

It's just more federal money down the hole accomplishing nothing, so it shouldn't be so upsetting, but the intro speech about how nuclear is necessary to save the earth makes it chafe.

nuclear is necessary to save the earth makes it chafe.

But I happen to believe this.

And while you sniff at the DEI-flavored position, I will note that nuclear waste handling was a bit more...lax in the mid-20th Century, so it would indeed behoove the FedGov to try and ask the Waquampa Tribe nicely if they're at all okay with being near a waste site.

It is definitely true that nobody wants a nuclear waste storage site in their backyard, so that does create difficulties for finding someplace to store the waste. It is necessary to store it someplace, especially if the future of energy generation looks like it's dependent on nuclear power.

So consent is needed, that is also true. And it's probably also true that the way you get consent is finding a way to funnel federal money to the interested parties in the area and buying them off. So Brinton's work (if that is what they are doing) on that could indeed be useful and valuable - how do we structure a system of bribes so that it doesn't too obviously look and sound like a system of bribes? One way certainly would be to paint over it a coat of "we are deferring to the ancestral wisdom of the Waquampa tribe"; to be cynical, if anyone objects "hey, this is a scheme of bribery!", the Waquampa make good cats-paws to deflect criticism.

To me it reads as "this latest round of funding is obviously just for us to smear around for political purposes rather than solve the problem. Btw if we don't solve the problem earth is doomed, whoops my bad lmao"

The pro forma earth being doomed bit makes it worse for me.

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