site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31616 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.

I actually know what I am talking about.

You're still here, saying 'nothing to see here' in regards to a inexplicably hired rookie journalist with no relevant experience, who previously worked as an aide to the chief of naval operations and then went on to help bring down the president.

And yeah, the same president who had just then been targeted by DoD spies.

Mhmm. And how impartial may you then be? I'm starting to think you are under orders to be obtuse, because any other explanation is so uncharitable it'd probably break the rules were I to write it out.

You're still here, saying 'nothing to see here' in regards to a inexplicably hired rookie journalist with no relevant experience

Why is it inexplicable that a former Naval officer would go into journalism?

Mhmm. And how impartial may you then be? I'm starting to think you are under orders to be obtuse, because any other explanation is so uncharitable it'd probably break the rules were I to write it out.

I'm honestly fascinated to hear what your theory is. Either I am an operative moderating a tiny niche forum under orders from the Deep State, or.... what? Please tell me it's something more interesting than "Or you're just too stupid to grasp the truth of my arguments."

Why is it inexplicable that a former Naval officer would go into journalism?

Now it's hardly imaginable, and back then it was unusual.

He also himself noted in his memoirs that he was hired despite zero qualification or relevant experience.

And yeah, again, the whole thing. Not just 'a naval officer'. Someone in naval intelligence, who just finished working for the CNO.

is. Either I am an operative moderating a tiny niche forum under orders from the Deep State, or.... what?

Sorry - it was late'.

Any other explanation I have, if I spelled it out, would be breaking the rules.

Now it's hardly imaginable, and back then it was unusual.

No, it wasn't.

He also himself noted in his memoirs that he was hired despite zero qualification or relevant experience.

Barriers to entry in journalism were not that high, and former military officers have always been pretty desirable new hires.

You do what many people stitching together a conspiracy theory do, and ignore all the implausibilities in your narrative. So he was hired out of the Navy (note that he wasn't just hired on the spot, as you imply - he got a trial run at the Washington Post, wasn't hired, did some time at a smaller paper, and got hired a year later). And according to you, it was all part of some long term plan hatched to bring down Nixon. I mean, if I were running an operation to sabotage the POTUS and had the ability to pull strings everywhere from the FBI to the Washington Post, I can think of many better ways to do it.

All of this is also just based on the laughable presumption that Nixon did nothing wrong and was only disgraced because of those meddling kids.

Any other explanation I have, if I spelled it out, would be breaking the rules.

Oh, go on - whisper it in my DMs. I'm honestly curious, and promise not to mod you for it.

Either I am an operative moderating a tiny niche forum under orders from the Deep State, or.... what?

Weren't you the same person who ridiculed me for suggesting people with careers in companies or institutions may have residual, unwarranted loyalties to these entities?

And then proceed to defend interests and quality of said institutions because acknowledging they fucked up by serving them and that they're no good would be bad for their self image. Classic ego defense.

That's quite a disingenuous characterization of that discussion, and since you're doing nothing but evading every point and dancing around every direct question put to you, I think we're done.

was only disgraced because of those meddling kids.

Yeah. FBI deputy director is a 'meddling kid'. The JCS are 'meddling kids' - they were the one who spied on Nixon just before Watergate.

I'm tired of this, to be fair. I'll get back to this once my room is immaculately clean.

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