site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34966 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I assume that you chose to avoid answering what I thought was a simple question because it challenged your worldview to an uncomfortable degree.

Should we assume that every time you don't answer a question, change a hypothetical scenario, etc, you do that for the same reason?

I think that would be a reasonable assumption, yes. Are you aware of any instances where this happened?

Here you go.

Here's another.

And another.

That's just this thread.

An unanswered question is very weak evidence of someone doing so because they're uncomfortably challenged because there's plenty of innocent explanations for why someone wouldn't respond (e.g. touch grass, etc.). The context of what I was responding to here is an instance of someone having the time and nevertheless acrobatically evading the question. This scenario is strong evidence of my assertion.

Either dodging questions and other forms of rhetorical acrobatics are proof your worldview has been challenged to an uncomfortable degree or there are plenty of innocent explanations for why someone wouldn't respond directly in an argument. In my opinion it is a crazy assumption, especially on a forum, and especially for you. I smudged the lines a bit but I think you can see what I mean.

Sure, I said I'm open to innocent explanations. I don't know what the innocent explanation to someone choosing to devote the time to responding, but instead of addressing an uncomfortable question, they pull a "look over there!" move

Each of those links you had the opportunity to engage with the content of the posts and redirected instead. Why did you do that? Because your worldview was challenged to an uncomfortable degree?

I asked clarifying questions because the posts were quite ambiguous. Understanding the specific point being made allows me to better engage with the direct content.

Sure, off the top of my head I can recall when I posted the example involving Kurt Eichenwald and his tentacle porn tab, and modified the IRL scenario to create a hypothetical where telling the truth would make you look worse than "confessing" to something that didn't happen. You ignored the hypothetical, and debated the IRL case. I was happy to put that down to a misunderstanding, but it seems like I shouldn't have done so.

I thought I did address your hypothetical. I admit I didn't really understand what it had to do with my original question, which was asking "If Nixon was the victim of a deep-state conspiracy, why didn't he tell anyone?" I interpreted your response as essentially "well what if Nixon thought about telling the truth but worried it would make it him look like he's digging his own hole further so he chose to stay quiet to avoid that worse outcome" which certainly is a possibility, but I didn't find that explanation plausible enough to take seriously.

You're welcome to ask me whatever other questions you want, or point out whatever misunderstanding I made.

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