site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31623 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.

Bro, calm down, I'm not pro-Putin.

It also happens to be a pro-truth narrative

Ok, cool. So Putin just says that instead his shtick about Nazis. If Russians are really so morally corrupt, won't they just shrug and continue carrying out orders rather than collapsing their society?

In contrast:

Nobody was interested in being Russia's enemy, neither Ukraine nor the West

What if the now truth-telling western elites let it slip that what you're saying is nonsense?

So Putin just says that instead his shtick about Nazis.

What exactly is "that"? If Putin said "we must spend 200 thousand lives to invade Ukraine because having a democratic state next to us makes me look bad" - then I'm not sure the society would collapse, but pretty sure the war effort would. The society there has more than one lie, so removing just one is not really enough.

What if the now truth-telling western elites let it slip that what you're saying is nonsense?

What if the Sun were made of Gauda cheese, the quarks are unicorn farts, and the Earth is a giant corn tortilla glued to the back of an enormous turtle? I have no idea. It's a counter-factual hypothetical for which I have no answer and in which I have no interest. In reality, this happened: https://youtube.com/watch?v=N0IWe11RWOM This is not some random talking head. This is the guy who was US President for 8 years, and called "Lightbringer", "Miracle Worker" and "kind of god" by the same elites.

Sure, you're the Truthbearer and anyone disagreeing is either lying or insane to the point they'd think the sun is made out of cheese.

Have fun being right, but I'm not enjoying this conversation anymore.

You made a baseless assumption "what if everything you know as reality is wrong", without producing any argument as to why, and when I refused to accept it, you try to mock me as if I represented myself as Truthbearer. I am not bearer of anything, I have eyes and ears to witness the reality, and that's enough. If you want to challenge that, you are welcome, but you need something more than bare assumption of "what if everything you know is wrong". That's not "disagreement", not in any useful sense, it's just baselessly refusing to agree for the sake of contradicting. To have disagreement, you need to have some contrary argument or evidence, not just bare declaration of "nonsense".

Unfortunately, looks like you don't have any more. I agree, this position can not be enjoyable for you. Good luck next time.

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