site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35038 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.

Fair points all around. Some nitpicks:

But they do bear out my general impression that less-than-princely sexual behavior from men is far more common than false allegations from women.

Oh I bet. But that was not the question. The question was whether the current social regime leads to more or less "less than princely behavioor" by men. And that very much depends on what we compare the current situation with. I would hazard the guess that the current risk-reward structure results in much less inappropriate behavior than any other after the sexual revolution.

Two caveats though. One is that what is commonly regarded as inappropriate behaviour has shifted dramatically. This might result in more women feeling victimised than ever before, especially since we started to hand out social and professional rewards for victimhood.

The other is that the punishment for missteps is affecting the behaviour of those least likely to misstep much more than those who simply don't care. The inappropriate-behaviour-per-social-interaction counter may actually go up as a result as the shy and gentle nerds stop trying and the Chads keep on chadding as before.

Even if this is so, the nuclear powers quickly realized that nukes are not an automatic win condition for any given conflict. They do not allow you to order other countries around at will, nor even to credibly deter low-level bad behavior, because everybody knows you'd have to be insane to drop them over anything less than an existential threat.

I'd say there's a fair share of recreational use over fairly trivial matters. Of course, it will be mostly the sociopaths running around using that weapon while those who truly need it to defend themselves will hesitate to use it. As always.

But my sense of the numbers is that the majority of truly inappropriate incidents never result in serious consequences, and only a tiny percentage of miscommunications/bad sex/jiltings result in retaliatory false accusations. Obviously we don't have hard data on this, nor will we get any. But it seems fair to say that a young man's likelihood of having his life torpedoed by a false accusation is similar to a young woman's likelihood of attracting a serious stalker or abuser. Those people are out there and genuinely dangerous, and as I said, they warp the risk calculation for the whole landscape. But just as I try to remind women that, "Hey, you sound a little hysterical when you use the Yorkshire Ripper to justify why you don't walk the dog after ten in your gated community," I'd ask that men try to keep a sense of proportion about the power dynamics here as well.

Well said.

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