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.

Can I? Sure. Will I? A waste of time when you are involved, given your pattern of conduct which has been noted repeatedly over the years even if you have also repeatedly denied the feedback. Improving your character to have fewer petty swipes at your other posters would be a start.

Can I? Sure. Will I? A waste of time when you are involved, given your pattern of conduct which has been noted repeatedly over the years even if you have also repeatedly denied the feedback. Improving your character to have fewer petty swipes at your other posters would be a start.

I know this isn't the first time you respond with this line, but nevertheless it continues to be an amazing and revealing response. You keep claiming that I'm ignoring/denying feedback, but man oh man it would be so much easier for both of us if you just actually respond with this fictitious feedback I'm apparently ignoring instead of wasting your time thinking up increasingly creative ways of dodging the question. See you on the next rotation buddy <3

I know this isn't the first time you respond with this line, but nevertheless it continues to be an amazing and revealing response. You keep claiming that I'm ignoring/denying feedback, but man oh man it would be so much easier for both of us if you just actually respond with this fictitious feedback I'm apparently ignoring instead of wasting your time thinking up increasingly creative ways of dodging the question.

I reject the request because you continue to act in bad faith and lie about other people's positions and past engagements for the sake of your current arguments.

You and I both know that you saved the very post where I detailed when I first wrote you off on grounds of character, because you have repeatedly linked to it since the migration while bemoaning that you have never been given feedback. You and I also both know that the same post was preceeded in the same post thread by object-level feedback of argument noting specific cases in context that you were doing what you were accused of. We both know you have been previously reminded of this, just as we both know that you will, in the future, claim that you have never been responded to and that claims of previous feedback that you yourself have linked to was fictitious.

See you on the next rotation buddy <3

Try not to conduct any more miscarriages of justice until then.

You and I also both know that the same post was preceeded in the same post thread by object-level feedback of argument noting specific cases in context that you were doing what you were accused of. We both know you have been previously reminded of this, just as we both know that you will, in the future, claim that you have never been responded to and that claims of previous feedback that you yourself have linked to was fictitious.

I can respond with nuh-uh and then you can respond with yeah-uh and I can respond with nuh-uh again or....you can just answer the question. The amount of effort you continue to put into evading this very very very simple question makes me conclude you're being deliberately obtuse to obfuscate the fact that you lack evidence for your assertions.

I can respond with nuh-uh and then you can respond with yeah-uh and I can respond with nuh-uh again or....you can just answer the question.

The question has been answered for years. You used to post the link quite regularly to where I did, until it was pointed out you were skipping the parts that pointed out examples that drove the conclusion.

The amount of effort you continue to put into evading this very very very simple question makes me conclude you're being deliberately obtuse to obfuscate the fact that you lack evidence for your assertions.

The effort is entirely commensurate with my assessment of your good faith and character, which you have only lived up to in the years since.

I think you're referring to this thread from November, which reminded me that I already addressed the concerns you outlined. I'm assuming you missed it but I'm glad we can finally clear up our misunderstanding.

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