site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   35636 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.

Perhaps this is the Culture War method of rehabilitating nuclear power among the PMC left, through the sheer power of "wtf i love [thing] now."

Okay, okay, jokes aside, I do have to wonder if it is just a natural consequence of Weirdness Points: anyone seriously concerned enough about spent nuclear fuel in the modern discourse climate about energy, to the point of getting the education AND the job positions to do something about it, might end up being weird in other ways.

That being said, despite the opening line of this post, it's possible they may have torpedoed their career with this one lapse of judgment.

I disagree about one lapse of judgement. There were numerous ones: decision to steal, decision to do it in full view of the cameras, decision to keep the stolen goods and parade with them second time, decision to repeatedly lie about it, etc.

On the other hand, Brinton is a deputy assistant secretary. That's certainly a job post that gets you an office with a name plate on the door, but how important is it, really? The guy does have relevant qualifications in the field, but they do seem to have done mostly activism before landing this job, and there was a big deal made out of them doing youth work for LGBT+ teens and kids. So it seems to have been a combination of "ticking off diversity boxes to throw some bones to our progressive edge" with "just enough qualifications not to be obviously 'only hired because they're a weirdo'".

I think the general weirdness came before getting interested in being a nuclear engineer; their origin story is their parents were Southern Baptist missionaries, they came out to them about being bisexual in high school and were sent to a conversation therapy camp for two years. The nuclear energy material, while relevant, doesn't seem to have been a big activist fight issue for them, as against LGBT youth suicide prevention and getting conversion therapy banned. So it wasn't "seriously concerned enough about spent nuclear fuel" that generated the weirdness points.

"Deputy assistant secretary" does sound kind of like a joke title, but it's probably exactly these minor-sounding bureaucratic positions that affect the outcomes of government efforts. It probably just takes the right person in the right place such as that to punt or pass along something important.

one laps of judgment.

The man? is a walking lapse of judgement.

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