site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31958 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Documentaries and news seem too generic to use a term like "the internet," would media or educational media specifically would be a better clarifier?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Did you mean specific instead of generic?

Sounds like this is just a rant of things you don't like, or potentially issues where you aren't appreciating the rhetorical strategy. The people writing those generally are waging the Culture War, what we come here to talk about. They want to win at all costs. They are simply people rationally following their goals, trying to convince as many folks over to their side so that they win. I'm not defending the practice, but this idea of conflict theory (media etc) and mistake theory (rationalists, good scientists, etc) is useful to understand and intellectualize the mainstream discourse if it gets to be too much.

Well, think of it this way. Say, hypothetically, the U.S. is actually an evil empire that's siphoning wealth from the global south and when I see something on the news like, say, a genocide in China, it's actually a projection of U.S. soft power to signal that they have enough of their citizens convinced that they can afford broad latitude to be aggressive under the auspices of this righteous consensus. Then I feel like an idiot engaging with something like that at face value, feeling bad about the alleged victims, or making conclusions about how dangerous life in China must be. But then I'd also conclude that well, I do live in the evil empire, and it's not really so much evil as much as it is rich and powerful and wanting to remain so, thus I wouldn't care to take the counter-narrative side of that either. After all that is done, the only winning move is to not play. So, indeed, it is a rant of things I dislike, in the same exasperated vein as, perhaps, of someone with Renaissance values in Medieval times lamenting how little interest there was to discuss ideas outside of religious ones.

One, the Motte was explicitly formed as a sub-culture to discuss the Culture War. If you like the discourse here but are sick of the CW, go check out the rest of the rat-sphere! Looks like you have a good idea of it already. You could also try reading dense literature, textbooks, philosophical works, or high-quality magazines. Sure it might be a bit difficult/more expensive, but you can't expect to get infinite high-quality reading material for free. (yet)

Oh, I know. That said, it's fairly active and less explicitly focused on discussing things from a rat perspective than the rest, so it tends to have more of that "smart people sharing ideas" energy that I'm looking for.

This is a great idea, and in my opinion what a lot of smart folks do.

Yeah, from one perspective, but from another perspective, it's admitting that internet-native content is of minimal value. I was maybe hoping that's not entirely true and I just haven't been looking in the right places and there is some kind of internet discourse that is both interesting and not political or oversimplified (or at least, simplified to a level I find acceptable so I can find the same satisfaction from it that the normie gets from the drivel he never thinks to question).

A lot of people like to keep up with the news for small talk. I can't imagine doing this, but some people I know have admitted to me privately that they keep up with sports just for the social benefits, even though they couldn't care less otherwise.

Hmm, that's interesting. So, if you lost interest in CW, are you saying you'd unplug without FOMO? I sometimes wonder if media consumption is just an addiction. If we liken information to physical goods, news seems like a terrible deal. Any individual news article loses relevance fairly quickly, even those that logically seem relevant for a long time lose their utility as people simply stop responding to news once they're out of the media cycle, it has limited value in "linking up" with future news to form a larger point. Just as a class of knowledge, it seems like such a terrible waste of time, and even knowing that generations have lived without this contrivance it still holds such a grip on me because everyone else is doing it too.

Then I feel like an idiot engaging with something like that at face value.... in the same exasperated vein as, perhaps, of someone with Renaissance values in Medieval times lamenting how little interest there was to discuss ideas outside of religious ones.

I definitely wouldn't encourage in engaging with things at face value if you care about the actual truth of the matter. As for the whole Renaissance values in Medieval times... I think you are being a tad overdramatic here. Sure the general discourse is more low-brow than I would like, but this is an unprecedented time in history for high level, intellectual discourse to flourish. We have an embarrassment of riches, you can spend your whole life engaging with brilliant people sharing fascinating ideas. Just because it takes more effort to have those conversations doesn't mean the discourse doesn't exist - this comparison seems extremely suspect to me.

So, if you lost interest in CW, are you saying you'd unplug without FOMO? I sometimes wonder if media consumption is just an addiction.

Media consumption is absolutely an addiction for many people. I have disengaged from the CW in the past many times. It's not always easy, and the Motte perhaps harder to disengage from than most, but it can be done. Best way in my experience is actively filling your time with other diversions. Staying busy for lack of a better phrase.

Just as a class of knowledge, [the news] seems like such a terrible waste of time, and even knowing that generations have lived without this contrivance it still holds such a grip on me because everyone else is doing it too.

If you feel this way, don't bother watching the news. If you genuinely care about connecting with others over topics in the cultural milieu, maybe subscribe to a high quality email newsletter or get your news from here. You write as if you have no agency with regard to the news, and that's not true! You can and absolutely should step back, evaluate your relationship with news media, and change it to suit your wants and needs.

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