site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   16082 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 19, 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.

If they are on this forum then report the comments. If they aren't on this forum why bring them up? We don't moderate every place on the internet.

I'm confused - why would sincerely advocating personal social carbon credits be report-worthy?

Depends on how it's done. If someone said "I want social carbon credits to punish the right" ya I'd consider that inflammatory and worth being modded.

That's a non-sequitur, because nobody's asking for that. We're just pointing out that they are out there setting leftist policy; just look under any article about how "only radical action can solve the climate crisis."

There is a pattern where people here make completely accurate predictions about what the left will do and get banned for it. Then when it inevitably happens the mods who banned them just shrug, go along with it, put the pronouns in their bios, eat the bugs, and cut their daughter's breasts off because the school said so.

See the people going "ok I've deleted my master branch, but abolishing the colour red is a step too far and I will never stand for it!"

That's a non-sequitur, because nobody's asking for that. We're just pointing out that they are out there setting leftist policy; just look under any article about how "only radical action can solve the climate crisis."

I assume, then, that if a leftist came here and said "Conservatives are Holocaust-denying Nazis who literally want to purge Jews and reinstitute Jim Crow," you would consider that a wholly unobjectionable sentiment to express so long as they can point to conservatives who do in fact want to do that and say so?

There is a pattern where people here make completely accurate predictions about what the left will do and get banned for it.

Please point to an example of someone being banned for making a completely accurate prediction about what the left will do. I expect you to be rigorous and precise, not sloppy and disingenuous with your criteria.

Then when it inevitably happens the mods who banned them just shrug, go along with it, put the pronouns in their bios, eat the bugs, and cut their daughter's breasts off because the school said so.

What are you on? To my knowledge, no mods here have done any of those things.

If they are out there then you can link to them, backup inflammatory claims with evidence.

If a leftist comes on here and doesn't feel the way that you claim they feel, what can they say? "Nuh uh!" ...?

When you just make stuff up then there is no where for the discussion to go. If you link to the evidence there can at least be a discussion about whether the sample is representative, or just some crazies.

Flip the circumstances the other way around. If a leftist said "rightists just want to go around murdering drug users, and they don't do it yet cuz they can't fully get away with it". Its a non-starter of a discussion. But if they instead link to what is happening in the philipines, then you can go multiple directions. Maybe "that isn't what is happening", or "that would never happen in america for x reasons", or maybe you do think its a good idea and now there is actually some meat to the discussion.

There is a pattern where people here make completely accurate predictions about what the left will do and get banned for it.

There are good and bad ways to phrase predictions. The bad ways are just a boo outgroup speculative fiction post, meant to only be read by people that already agree. The good way requires some effort, internet sleuthing to find the leading edge of a political movement, and some thoughtful writing to not phrase it as just a blatant attack.

Then when it inevitably happens the mods who banned them just shrug, go along with it, put the pronouns in their bios, eat the bugs, and cut their daughter's breasts off because the school said so.

Frustratingly, I'm looking at spending tens of thousands of dollars a year to put my daughter into a private religious school for a religion I don't believe in just to avoid coming anywhere close to such a scenario. I didn't find my way here to TheMotte because I buy into mainstream consensus. But TheMotte is not a place for the bitter losers of the culture war to commiserate with one another (don't be mistaken I am one of those bitter losers). We have a higher standard of discussion here and we plan on holding people to it.

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