site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   33253 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Also dont have sex with any woman who you have "power" over in your department. Didnt end well for quite a lot of Academics. Workplace relationships seem to be a nascent taboo in the US.

Indeed: https://www.thefp.com/p/he-was-a-world-renowned-cancer-researcher?s=w

Sabatinis case really boils my blood. Its outrageous that someone of his calibre can be taken out over such a nonissue, something no would would bat an eye over in a sane world. The contrast in those two things is hard to accept. It's hard to fathom this actually happened.

I dont know what he is upto now, but I were him I'd just defect to China or Russia and continue researching. There is no pride in sticking around in the country that fucked you over so blasely.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for Sabatini. Anyone who sleeps with someone as obviously repulsive and immoral as Knouse has whatever he gets coming. Yeah, yeah, whatever, "consent" is the only basis for morality in 2023, but nothing about their arrangement sounds like a good idea. It reminds me of that Bruce Hay guy at Harvard who had a similar thing happen to him.

What enrages me about the story is that Knouse's behavior was effectively endorsed; she was given a job by MIT and apparently had widespread support from the administration and the activist-students at NYU. It suggests a massive systemic failure in academia that goes far beyond one narcissistic woman.

Well China and Russia came calling but he turned them down, from the article.

It's a clownworld thing. I don't believe this is a functional way to run a civilization, how can it be competitive in the long run?

I was just having a look at suicide rates by country and there's an enormous gender gap in most but not all countries (China, India and parts of North Africa have nearly equal rates). I remember once getting a lecture from some NGO about the wage-gap and thinking in my head 'what would your response be if I produced statistics that showed men were twice or three times as likely to kill themselves and concluded that this was due to oppression by women, how can you justify prioritizing your own statistic out of all possible statistics'.

I remember once getting a lecture from some NGO about the wage-gap and thinking in my head 'what would your response be if I produced statistics that showed men were twice or three times as likely to kill themselves and concluded that this was due to oppression by women, how can you justify prioritizing your own statistic out of all possible statistics'.

Well, I asked several feminist activist types this exact question so I can reproduce their invariable answer for you:

This is because of Toxic Masculinity and because The Patriarchy Hurts Men Too. The solution is more feminism. It boils down to this handy 3-step plan:

  1. Give more special privileges and freebies to women, give women more power over men

  2. ??????

  3. Profit.

This is because of Toxic Masculinity and because The Patriarchy Hurts Men Too.

This part of feminist theory always amuses me. Like apparently men specifically set up society to benefit themselves by oppressing women but I guess men were so shit at it they created a society that also harms themselves so no one really benefits. This is supposed to make sense apparently.

Like apparently men specifically set up society to benefit themselves by oppressing women but I guess men were so shit at it they created a society that also harms themselves so no one really benefits. This is supposed to make sense apparently.

To be fair, this is a common criticism of feminism itself as well. Oft evil will shall evil mar.

Very fair point actually.

Religion is not an exercise in rigorous thinking, it is an exercise in piety.

He's taking money from private billionaires now. With any luck his new lab will have a sign on the door.

That's just good sense, though. If it's college students, they're young and dumb (because of their age) and so you will inevitably get into trouble when some lassie decides you raped her, because her friend clique told her it was rape. If it's your peers, workplace romances can turn nasty if it's a bad break-up, and even if it isn't, may incur resentment amongst other colleagues. An ex-lover who is still a colleague, especially if it was a bad break-up, may well turn all their efforts to destroying you. If you can't keep it in your pants, date outside the college completely.

"It was non-consensual so it was assault" happened to a nephew of mine, after some drunken kissing but nothing more, and the little bitch's friend persuaded her that because they were drunk she was incapable of consent so this was sexual assault. At least he had supportive friends and the college didn't try to boot him out without due process, but it's too damn risky.

Also dont have sex with any woman who you have "power" over in your department.

I would just say "woman in your department", for the reasons you suggest later: PMC people in the US seem to strongly frown on workplace relationships. It's quite a contrast with European academia, which in my experience feels like a badly written porn film half the time.

for the reasons you suggest later: PMC people in the US seem to strongly frown on workplace relationships.

You will use the swipey swipey app and you will like it!

PMC people in the US seem to strongly frown on workplace relationships.

They don't, actually, as long as the woman in question is happy with it. It just gives her a nuclear option should the relationship sour. Or whenever she feels the need to chase victimhood clout on twitter years later.

TBH I would say "don't have sex with anyone at the school at all".

Better but the safest option is "don't have sex with anyone at all".

Even in a college town, there are lots of residents who aren't part of the school. But let's say you're at some weird purpose-made place where every single resident works for the school... it's still good advice. It shouldn't be the case that you put your career at grave risk by having a relationship within the school, but unfortunately it is the case.

If you didn't ever mix with the locals that's really more of your thing than it being impossible. Plenty of students when I was in school knew some of the locals, if only from hitting up the same bars.

Also note that we are very much not talking about students here. We're talking about staff/faculty, who are going to mingle with the locals because... they are locals too.

Especially when it gets extended to "don't have sex with anyone in academia (e.g. that you meet at conferences) at all."

Sure, because these bogus rules are designed to filter out the "less than desirable" and "socially anxious".

I suppose there are scandals concerning male-male sex at universities, but I don't hear about them.

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