site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29600 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No.

Big prior against the US explicitly blowing up energy infrastructure. Bigger prior against the evidence only showing up on a random Substack. Sets off my “epistemic learned helplessness” flags.

I’d change my mind if mainstream outlets can point to a smoking gun.

a random Substack

A substack of one of the most decorated and impactful journalists of all time is "random".

OK.

I’d change my mind if mainstream outlets can point to a smoking gun.

So, a genetic fallacy then.

I really don't like the rat-adjacent obsession with the idea of "priors". It's just a fancy way of saying "I believe X" or "I don't believe X" and acting like that somehow means the burden of proof is on the opposition.

I’d change my mind if mainstream outlets can point to a smoking gun.

Sure much like with the Twitter Files, it'll be a conspiracy theory until it becomes undeniable, at which point we'll hear "this is nothing new, why are you talking about it?".

If the OP wants personal opinions, priors are appropriate. I don’t believe the US did it, or that Sy Hersh would be scooping it on substack if we did. As such, yeah, I’m claiming the burden of proof is on the opposition—if they care about convincing me.

the difference between prior assumptions and beliefs is that priors are expected to update or change with new info whereas beliefs tend to be much closer to permanent. Its a way for people to say "i currently believe X but i'm not married to the conclusion" in fewer words.

That said its also the designated socially acceptable space to traffic obvious personal bias into an otherwise ratty conversation, so i do understand being annoyed by it. "those aren't my unsupported dogmatic opinions, those are just my priors"

It's funny because netstack was basically saying "I believe the US will never blow up energy infrastructure" and "I don't believe in evidence from substack."

Counter. At the time the US didn’t want to claim responsibility. It’s a slow escalation. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is an official leak. Wait a bit and people don’t care as much. Leak a non sourced story thru a guy whose sometimes right but comes off conspiratorial. So you slowly build up the idea that we did it. From we make the most sense. Then conspiracy guy says how we did it. Then a year from now some more official backing.

That’s kind of how I would do it. Day one we did it would have escalated it too much. But as a spook this is about the timeline I would pursue.

While I agree it is unlikely, Sy Hersh isn’t exactly a random substack.

That said, this is thinly sourced, would indicate criminal behavior by multiple people in the executive branch, and an act of aggression against a warring nuclear power. I think Biden is an idiot, but I have to think the joint chiefs would have stopped this.

I think the joint chiefs are idiots and Biden is the only sane man.

Although it’s worth mentioning that I’ve always held the view that the nord stream pipeline was blown up by the US.

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