site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34967 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 mean, yeah I would. I value my honor above having a job, even if it means I am going hungry.

Have you done that before?

And yes in the case of SaruchBinoza, it's not over unless he is literally on the edge, but I do understand where he is coming from because that line is a lot thinner than places outside the US.

I am fortunate enough to have never been forced to choose between cheating on something or having a job. However, I remain committed to my principles and I resent when people say "well you'll change your tune when X happens" (because it's both patronizing and has always proved wrong before). So I hope that isn't what you were getting at.

I am quite literally hinting at that because it's rare in my experience that people actually stick to their words when things actually get tough and uncertain. If you can do it, then you have my respect.

But if you allow me some wiggle room, It's not that I exactly think you would change your tune, it's that I think you are incapable of comprehending what you would do if things get bad enough. The circuitry in your brain that might activate then might have never been activated in the past.

So yes, your present self wouldn't do anything you are saying you won't, but what guarantee exists that the current you will remain preserved? Especially as your lower faculties desperately tries to do what it has evolved millions of years to do (Not give a shit about ethics and just get the bread).

It's certainly possible that, when faced with the situation, I would choose differently. I'm not perfect after all. However, I would certainly attempt to live up to my ideals. And even if I didn't, that doesn't mean my ideals were even wrong, it means that I did wrong and failed to live up to them.

But honestly I just really wish you wouldn't take such a tack to begin with. Like I said, it's very condescending. And I can tell you that on every previous occasion where someone told me "you'll change your tune someday" (generally adults talking down to me as a child), they turned out to be wrong. So I don't put much stock in the correctness of such statements even if they were more polite.

I apologize for taking such a tack and gossiping to that effect elsewhere.

I am in agreement with the utility of integrity, I have written in response to Fruck that I am losing faith in its practicality. And I'm not a total deontologist, Maybe 30%.

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