site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31611 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What reason would there be to not say what about the content was objectionable? Would it violate copyright, or some kind of NDA?

Perhaps it makes it more difficult for whatever kind of lawfare challenges Blue Tribers will inevitably try to throw at it. If you don't tell them why you're doing it, then when someone tries to file an injunction on you, you can retrodict your motivation to function as the hard counter to whichever statute they're lawfaring you under.

Idk, IANAL, but shenannegains amongst Boomers In Black Robes are often the reasons for obfuscation.

It’s a general pattern that Desantis tries to do this. On the other hand the Texas GOP(which is a far more oligarchic, established, and less personal right wing government) prefers to rely on ties to individual judges, good legal talent, and procedural limitations. It’s an interesting contrast between the two most powerful state GOPs- Desantis prefers to keep his opponents off balance through keeping details close to his chest, presumably because he hasn’t built the same level of control via party ties. I’m interpreting this to mean he has a limited amount of in-house talent and has to be careful about what he uses it for.

Black Robes, you say? ;)

I so desperately wanted that show to be good and it simply refused.

I think the time they made fun of Alex Jones over Sandy Hook was what did it fit me. In a world where all the conspiracies are true, where secret societies and reptilians control the world, where JR is already portrayed as a violent sociopath, why can't you have a joke about it? Why not a throwaway line like, "that really wasn't our best work," or, "I was working overtime for weeks trying to cover it up." It's a betrayal of the premise, one of many, that eventually made me drop the show.

I think part of the lore is that people fixate on the fake conspiracies instead of the real ones. Flat earth is, in-universe, a psy-op created to prevent people from learning about the secret world under the Earth's surface.

"The Earth's not flat, it's hollow," is fine in-universe, but "Alex Jones is a wackadoodle for thinking Sandy Hook is a hoax," isn't. It would be the same as saying, "the Earth's not flat, it's exactly what everyone says it has always been, nothing to see here."

In-universe, it makes no sense for Sandy Hook to be just a school shooting. It needs to be some group doing something for some purpose. I don't care who it is, or why, but it's disappointing that they have no problem saying Kennedy was assassinated by the deep state, but can't say that the deep state murdered children for gun control (or child sacrifice! or they kidnapped them to feed to reptilians!).

A betrayal of the premise, and one that I couldn't move past.

You know what? That's completely reasonable. I appreciate your take.

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