site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29714 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You seem to be saying that Jim Crow kept crime in check. Yet, the places you mention saw crime rise in the late 60s to 70s despite never having Jim Crow. So removing Jim Crow could not have caused that. And if this data is accurate murder rose less in Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia and South Carolina

than in the US as a whole. So I am skeptical of your argument.

I think this is right, and I'll elaborate with stats.

From the 1940's to 1970's, the black population in the northeast and midwest increased by about 150%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Migration_(African_American)#Statistics

So you seem to be suggesting his theory is wrong because over the same corresponding time period, regions where the black population increased 150% (northeast, midwest) saw an increase in crime while regions where the black population went down 20% (the south) saw a much slower increase.

So quite possibly the issue was merely overall size of the black population, not Jim Crow specifically. Good noticing!

Except that the vast majority of that increase took place long before the increase in crime. And, the Second Great Migration was over by 1970, yet crime kept rising in the 1970s. And, in fact, the murder rate dropped quite a bit after a1960. If the theory that blacks freed from the constraints of Jim Crow commit violent crime" were true, then that would not have happened.

The specific rules are not important - who rules and what they are permitted to do is what's important.

"The question is which is to be master, that is all." - USG asserted that it is to be master. Did USG provide better rule? Decades of horrific violence demonstrated that no, it did not. Why do I care about bus seating in comparison to that?

Don’t you need to control for large immigration during that time period?

I’m not saying Jim Crow was good (and it isn’t really on you to prove otherwise). I’m just saying this rebuttal isn’t iron clad.

Of course it's not ironclad, but if you aren't asking covfefe for data, this comment is just an isolated demand for rigor.

No it isn’t. I even noted proving this point wasn’t on the poster (because the poster was responding to a claim; not making one). But within the data laden argument made, I believe it is suspect.

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