site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32403 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 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.

The relevant groups are still fringe in important ways, in that for many of them being fringe is an important part of their identity.

Sure, and part of that is because we are only part way through a transition, where I live gay people are still going to be fringe. In San Francisco less so. But they are overall less fringe than they were 60 years ago I think, and I think that is likely to continue. The other part is that the fringe/center is simplistic, there are really multiple centers and different levels of fringe and so on.

So I agree it would be great if we could not get anywhere near the Troubles or anything worse. And I really hope we do not. However the side that was (to return to a metaphor I have used before) just punching someone in the face, complaining when the other person is now about to swing at them, is unlikely to get much charity from the person with the bloody nose. I have mentioned before about the idea that in a good old fashioned man on man fight both sides have to get their licks in and can then shake hands, having both given as good as they have gotten. That they can reconcile because it feels fair. Whether that is good or bad I don't know, but I think that some measure of either justice or revenge has to be seen to be delivered. Simply returning to the status quo leaves one side feeling a victim not a competitor.

So if we accept that Christianity got a few licks in against gay people (not necessarily actual violence, shaming, conversion attempts, forcing them to stay in the closet etc.) for that to be resolved Christianity must then suffer something. And it has to be something they don't like, so if they taught kids it was bad to be gay, now their kids must be taught that is good to be gay for example. Whether they like that or not. Otherwise they are (seen to be) being let off the hook. They never took a punch to the jaw. It's easier to forgive an opponent you fought with than a person who victimized you with no consequences.

This is I would argue an explanation for why groups have been victimized do what they do and is a pretty good fit for what we see around us.

Again for the record, I think the world would be a better place if this were not the case, but I think the number of people who actually are really willing to turn the other cheek is pretty tiny and this applies to groups as well as to individuals. So its a balance, and a difficult one because it is also human nature to keep throwing punches at the person who hurt us. And we don't have an uninvolved bouncer to drag us apart once one side goes too far.

I think it becomes a see-saw of ups and downs and maybe over time the oscillations get less severe, but that may just be the optimist in me talking.

So your enemies have permission to torture the shit out of you, all they have to do is take power? And you think it will get less severe?

If they take power then they won't need my permission. That's one of the side effects of taking power.

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