site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   33353 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 27, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So much ink spilt and do much of it in volleys denying sexist motives while accusing the other side of sexist motives. Is anyone here even against something like a really strongly socially enforced monogamy? Just sure the other gender wouldn't go for it? Is there not some common ground at can find?

I don’t think it’s a good idea. It’s not either sex that wouldn’t go for it, it’s the broader edifice of liberalism.

This is a subject that turns avowed conservatives into communists. Expecting powerful social enforcement to stamp down inequality is the most archetypal authleft solution. Given any reasonable level of freedom, it’s going to lose out to structures which work with rational self-interest instead of against it. I’m not willing to throw out enough liberties to make up the difference.

Then again, I suppose I must be on the good side of this inequality. I’ve got my job, my prospects, and my girlfriend I met in college. No property, yet, but that can change. Despite what other respondents might suggest I’ve never dated a girl who was a crazed gold digger or a sociopath. So perhaps it’s just my privilege telling me to let freedom ring.

This is a subject that turns avowed conservatives into communists

And avowed communists into conservatives. If hypocrisy exists, it goes both ways.

Expecting powerful social enforcement to stamp down inequality is the most archetypal authleft solution.

"Authleft"? I would just "left" or even centre sufficies, given that thinking reducing (economic) inequality is beneficial, is by no means restricted to tankies.

I don’t follow. How does it make communists into conservatives? What tankies are coming out and campaigning for monogamy? Maybe there are examples from post-Mao China…

Enforcing a preferred social structure from above is quintessentially authoritarian. That’s true in the case of wealth inequality, and it’d be true if applied to marriage.

It makes tankies into conservatives when they argue in favor of a (sexual) free market, with winners, losers, and those with absolutely nothing.

Do you want to eliminate welfare for those who can't compete economically?

Eliminate? No.

Reduce? Probably.

Reform? Definitely.

I’m not exactly a card-carrying libertarian. I do, however, think that sexual market controls go too far.

What sexual market controls do we have? Or are you speaking hypothetically?

Hypothetically since I was answering this question:

Is anyone here even against something like a really strongly socially enforced monogamy?

I am against it, in theory, because I don’t see how you get to that level of social enforcement without trampling individual liberties. “Market controls” probably isn’t quite the right analogy, depending on who’s doing the trampling. It’s definitely not a description of the relatively laissez-faire onanism we have currently.

Is anyone here even against something like a really strongly socially enforced monogamy?

I think that 'strongly socially enforced' is doing a lot of lifting, in that it would entail 'reversing' many liberties that have been extended to both sexes (moreso women) and would probably require a return of religiosity in order to make the enforcement mechanisms have sufficient 'bite.'

I would imagine, for example, this leading to the return of shotgun weddings, of stricter controls on prostitution, and by extension on strip clubs and porn production, on a stronger preference for modesty in dress, and much more difficult divorce processes, which implies actual divorces would be even more fraught than usual.

A large portion of the population would balk at some or all of the above if proposed independently.

So I'm not against it, but there's a discussion to have about the second order effects that it might carry.

Except for the ability to use sex transactionally, which I've been assured in this thread is not the thing women really want(and believe them), I'm not really sure what women lose on this. And I don't think we need religion, if people recognized the problem they could recognize the usefulness of the solution and punishing desenters socially should come naturally. There is not a lot of ambient sympathy for the main losers, guys who are sleeping with tons of women no strings attached or women using sex to get ahead.

There is not a lot of ambient sympathy for the main losers, guys who are sleeping with tons of women no strings attached or women using sex to get ahead.

I mean, one doesn't need sympathy when one just has raw power. Almost by definition, guys who are sleeping with tons of women and women using sex to get ahead have lots of power. The rest of society might be more numerous, but they'd still have to coordinate to overpower that powerful group, and I think the very reason this discussion is being had is that such coordination doesn't seem to be coming naturally.

And I don't think we need religion, if people recognized the problem they could recognize the usefulness of the solution and punishing desenters socially should come naturally.

I honestly do not think this is how the majority of humans' thought processes work.

Punishing dissenters/defectors comes naturally, yes, but note that this behavior is only expected when the human in question can directly gain a personal benefit from doing so. Coordinating on a wider scale requires a bit more influence than merely "recognizing the usefulness of the solution."

There is not a lot of ambient sympathy for the main losers, guys who are sleeping with tons of women no strings attached or women using sex to get ahead.

This is true.

Is anyone here even against something like a really strongly socially enforced monogamy?

Conditional on the details, but based on the way I hear it talked about in this thread I think I would be.

Just sure the other gender wouldn't go for it?

Forget the other gender. All available data suggests my gender wouldn't go for it.

I mean, that's what I personally opted into. It's a good solution!

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