site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29717 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.

Then, as I said:

"People" did not return the verdict in question; jurors did

That doesn't respond to my point. Even if people in general are not the ones to return a verdict, they can still discuss whether or not it could result through application of principles, or whether it was arbitrary.

if you did, you would have presented it by now

Not quite. You see, there is a tendency on this forum for "rational"/"adults in the room" types to frame the discussion in such a way, where they can act as if they are right by default, and demand that the other side provides all the evidence. To be fair, I understand that completely, I do it far more often than I would like (and I mean pro-actively, not just as a defense against it being done to me, like in this conversation. Pardon! I actually did it here as well, but to Smok, not to you!). For anyone who grew up in New Atheism, Skepticism, or Rationalism it will be a matter of habit, it's the easiest way to not be wrong after all. But I think that this is no way to have an honest conversation. If you hold a position on an issue, I think fairness demands that you state it, show your evidence for it, and let the other side poke holes in it as well.

The stance of pure criticism should only be allowed either if it comes from genuine curiosity, or if it is to show a statement made by the other side was clearly false. "There is not enough evidence to conclude X" is not conducive to rational debate, and should be discouraged.

But, of course, you don't have that access;

Now that's a positive claim! I'm happy to address it: are you aware that the entire trial was live streamed?

Yes, people in general can still discussed whether or not it could result through application of principles, or whether it was arbitrary. I never said otherwise. Rather, I took issue with your claim that the burden of proof lies with those who think that the verdict was NOT the result of anti-Jones bias, rather thanwith you. More specifically, if you claim that the evidence before the jury was such that the burden has shifted to those who disagree with you, it is incumbent upon you to clearly and completely state what that evidence was, and why you think it supports your position.

Well, I tried. If you managed to read my comment to mean I want to put all the burden of proof on you, I think it's best if we move on.

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