site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31654 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023

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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

He explicitly says why, in the portion you quote: he says that they "have the largest stakes in the future." The article also quotes him as saying, "Most of the global challenges have not been created by the Global South. But they affect us more. . . . The search for solutions also does not factor in our role or our voice." He could not be more clear what his rationale is. Your implicit argument that economic activity should be the only determinant of whether a country's citizen "matters" does not address his argument at all. It is also a silly argument to make re India in particular, given that it is 6th in the world in total GDP.

Given disparate birth rates over the world, a growing imbalance between countries who hold the actual power versus where most of humanity will increasingly be located could lead to increased international tension.

Well, the solution to that problem would seem to be obvious: Give them more actual power, starting by giving countries like India, Indonesia, Brazil, and Nigeria seats on the Security Council and taking similar steps re other international organizations and international agreements.

It is also a silly argument to make re India in particular, given that it is 6th in the world in total GDP.

I explicitly wrote that I was pretty optimistic about India and centered my argument around countries like Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria. Do read carefully.

Well, the solution to that problem would seem to be obvious: Give them more actual power, starting by giving countries like India, Indonesia, Brazil, and Nigeria seats on the Security Council and taking similar steps re other international organizations and international agreements.

Right... except geopolitics isn't run on charity. You get a seat at the table if you can wrangle your way there. Thus far, most of the Third World is too weak and incapable of doing that, which contrasts with the "our time has come" rhetoric. It clearly hasn't and may in fact never. There's no reason to expect someone else to voluntarily do your heavy lifting for you, which appears to be the underlying premise of a lot of these arguments.

Right... except geopolitics isn't run on charity.

No one said it was. You seem to think that an increase in international tensions would be a bad thing, including for current "winners." So, pure self-interest is a sufficient reason to give those countries more power.

There's no reason to expect someone else to voluntarily do your heavy lifting for you

I agree. This is precisely why I refuse to help old ladies carry their shopping up the stairs of the subway.

More seriously, the source of your befuddlement at the speech in question is that you value different things. Whether the current geopolitical structure benefits actual human beings, as opposed to states, seems not to be a question that is relevant to you. Other people might think differently.

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