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.

You mean actual reports on a post? If you can see those without being a mod, then someone screwed up.

No, I mean just the comment itself. It happened to me several times that a very recent comment would show up in the Janny Duty queue. Any mod response would only happen hours after I rated it, so I doubt that what I see is filtered by the mods first.

Oh, you're referring to Zorba's volunteer helpers thing. Sorry, I was not clear what you meant by "Janny Duty."

I can't say what subset of posts you've been seeing. From my perspective, there is a group of people who very consistently report posts for partisan reasons (and are also responsible for the majority of reports overall). Most of these reports are targeted at left-leaning posts, though there are definitely some lefties who report anything a right-winger says.

I suppose that's what Zorba's system is supposed to help ameliorate.

I can't say what subset of posts you've been seeing

To me it looks like a random selection of recently reported posts. I was literally just asked to rate two of your comments, so I doubt prior moderator approval is necessary for them to be put in the queue.

Most of these reports are targeted at left-leaning posts, though there are definitely some lefties who report anything a right-winger says.

Usually when something pops up for me to rate, there's some kind of insult in there, either overt or veiled (which was the case in one of your posts I just rated). My initial reaction is usually "Christ, stop being such babies, and don't snitch on everybody you got into a spat with", but I at least know why the post got reported. But sometimes I'm left scratching my head, as to why anyone is asking me to look at a comment. It's not bad, and not high-quality enough to be reported for AAQC. These are almost exclusively right wing, and I file them under reporting for disagreement, but I can't be sure, since I don't see the reports.

I believe Zorba said at one point that the system includes a random sample of (unreported) comments as a sanity check. I've tagged any number of comments as "neutral," and I suspect plenty of those were not human-reported.

To me it looks like a random selection of recently reported posts. I was literally just asked to rate two of your comments, so I doubt prior moderator approval is necessary for them to be put in the queue.

No, it's not. Like I said, I misunderstood you above.

You're presumably seeing a random selection of reported posts, whereas we (right now) see all of them.

It's funny how many of them are amadan's posts. They're not gonna get moderated. Is it one person who's really annoyed?

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