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.

I recognize your argument as technically correct, in the "do words even mean anything" sense. I do not think your argument is in any way meaningful.

This doesn't make any sense. My argument isn't about whether words mean anything. It is that your statement was by your own admission incorrect. That's not irrelevant. It's not about "do words even mean anything". It's that your statement was actually factually false, and when I pointed that out and your responded yes, I assumed we were on the same page at least about that.

Again to be clear, I think there are good arguments for your position. But that a declaration that my rights start at x and yours end there, is a bad one because it is demonstrably untrue. Not in some relativist stance, but actually factually in the real world untrue. And that when you segued into talking about trying to persuade society that your rights should start at x, you were acknowledging that, because otherwise that position does not make any sense. If your rights do start at X, you wouldn't need to persuade society of it. It would already be.

I am not sure where the inferential gap is here. But if I was wrong that you were acknowledging that the first statement was a deliberate lie in the service to persuading readers here, then I do withdraw that objection and apologize for it.

Unless this is a simple is/ought issue? When you said "Your right to believe you're a cat ends at my right to not be forced to say "heeereee kitty, kitty, kitty!" when I see you." did you mean instead that "Your right to believe you're a cat SHOULD end at my right to not be forced..." but that you acknowledge it currently does not necessarily end there, hence why you need to persuade society of it?

This doesn't make any sense. My argument isn't about whether words mean anything. It is that your statement was by your own admission incorrect. That's not irrelevant. It's not about "do words even mean anything"

Again - stop. I never admitted that. I "admitted" it in the same way I'd "admit" you're right if I was discussing whether or the Matrix is an allegory for trans issues, and you jumped in with ultra-relativist Death Of The Author take. Death Of The Author is a vacuous meta-argument that is completely irrelevant to anything to a conversation like that, so saying "sure, I suppose things only mean what everyone agrees they mean. So I'm trying to get people to agree with my meaning, do you mind?" is not conceding my object level point, it's pointing out you're making an irrelevant meta point.

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