site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   28173 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 26, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What does it mean to be "chill" about it? Having it normalized without being constantly brought up? The chillest way to deal with gays is the way the more extreme islamic countries do it.

Breeding so many deadly diseases, male gays are a huge risk to the population and humanity as a whole, which is why so many successful societies developed a strong aversion to them. Covid is a joke in comparison, and we forced everyone to stay home and wear masks for Covid. The truth needs to be countered with constant lies and propaganda.

  • -20

Without disagreeing with you- I certainly think that there's arguments in favor of suppressing homosexuality- I would say that "chill" means something like what you described to begin with-

Having it normalized without being constantly brought up?

A society where LGBT types get special legal privileges to dance down main street in their skivvies obviously doesn't count(eg the modern USA), but neither does a society where it's illegal to be out to children(eg Russia). And equally obviously a society like Iran where homosexuality is a capital offense doesn't count as chill about homosexuality.

What diseases are you talking about?

HIV, obviously, was deadly as fuck—from about 1975 to 2015. AIDS was unknown before the Thatcher years , and the HIV-1 zoonosis was almost certainly during the Taft administration. That particular deadly disease simply did not exist when successful societies we're failing to fail.

I can't think of any that did, but am here to be informed

If you want to avoid stds then be careful who you are having sex with. Gay people can only spread their diseases to people who are willing to have sex with them, they are not forcing disease upon anybody, therefore they are innocent.

Inflammatory claims require that you proactively provide evidence in proportion to how inflammatory your claims are, and "male gays are a huge risk to humanity as a whole, and the chillest way to deal with gays is to execute them" is extremely inflammatory.

You are allowed to make arguments about how homosexuality is bad and even that it should be suppressed, but you have to make those arguments in accordance with our rules, which means not just rolling with lazy hot takes about how gays are disgusting and hinting that we should kill them.

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