site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34928 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.

You're doing the thing again. I get it. You don't think their preferences should be respected. You think their identities are less legitimate than other forms of self identification.

No forms of self identification are legitimate. Zero. None at all.

If someone argues that they're a genius, but has a below-average IQ, little to no reasoning ability, and frequently makes obvious mistakes, we don't validate their self-perception of their intellectual abilities. We reject it.

Someone can profess to belong to a subculture, and other members of that subculture can call them a poser with whatever reasoning they wish, and not include them. Wearing a band shirt without knowing any of their songs, for example. Their identity as a Beatles fan does not trump the fact that they can't name a single song. The rest of the subculture rejects it.

No identity is solely the discretion of the individual; every single one needs to be validated by others. Even trans people understand this on some level, because they are constantly trying to cajole, solicit and force validation from others, from pronoun use all the way up to sexual acts.

It's like a nickname. You can't give yourself a nickname, it has to be bestowed upon you. To try to do so is considered the height of cringe. Similarly, you can't declare yourself cool, or attractive, or any number of other things -- only other people can grant you that status.

This is a mindset that creates misery. You cannot be dependent on what other people think about you.

You are, regardless of whether you acknowledge it or not. You can reckon with it, or everyone can mock you behind your back if you have a wildly inaccurate self-perception and a confidence you don't deserve. There is no opting out, I'm afraid.

This is a bit of a frame shift.

No forms of self identification are legitimate. Zero. None at all.

  • Rote Identification

If I perceive myself as a guy who built the tallest possible building in minecraft (given the current height limit), other people aren't necessary to that particular identification. It's just a fact.

  • Meta Identification

If I say I am a Beatles fan, I might not actually be a Beatles fan, but I am definitely someone who says they are a Beatles fan.

  • Desire Identification

If I want to be a lizard, then I want to be a lizard.

Validation doesn't always mean I need other people to think I'm a lizard. Plenty of validation is on the level of needing other people to accept that I want to be a lizard and not then be cruel about it.

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