site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   38429 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

incorrectly claim it means coordinated suppression efforts

How do you know this is incorrect?

I don’t!

@desolation has the right of it. I think the (lack of) coverage will be driven by individual discomfort. Editorial meddling will be less common, and inversely proportional to the scale of the outlet. Suppression at the C-suite level will be rarer still, and coordinated suppression between executives in different corporations will be nonexistent.

Thus I expect to see a few leaked conversations at lower levels saying things like “mentioning gender makes us look bad!” or “we’re giving ammunition to people who hate trans.” It goes without saying that this will be spun as strong evidence for Soros (or whoever is the Gay Agenda bogeyman?) commanding his minions to bury the story. I realize I can’t disprove this, since the absence of evidence could just mean a bogeyman is competent. But my expectation is that burial will emerge from individual incentives. Starlings in flight.

@desolation has the right of it. I think the (lack of) coverage will be driven by individual discomfort. Editorial meddling will be less common, and inversely proportional to the scale of the outlet. Suppression at the C-suite level will be rarer still,

All perfectly in accordance with coordination theory

and coordinated suppression between executives in different corporations will be nonexistent.

Yeah, they coordinate on the strategic, rather than operational level.

I realize I can’t disprove this

I'm not even asking for that. Just would be nice if you didn't confidently assert the opposite without providing arguments.

I think this is basically the "prospiracy" idea: there is no central coordination or singular grand plan, but everyone is in the same direction anyways.

There's mailing lists, and discords, and other forms of communication.

The key here is coordinated, which would be virtually impossible to prove anyways; the position is there's no Grand Dragon of Progressivism contacting all the networks to shut it down or else.

That's not what coordinated means. Since problem_redittor decided to jog our memory of GamerGate, I firmly recall it being called a "coordinated harassment campaign" because a bunch of people met up in chat rooms, even though there was no Grand Dragon of GamerGate either.

For me the key is "incorrect". If you're going to say something like that, you should give a compelling argument for why I should consider it so, not hide behind mere lack of evidence for the opposite.

but some people get fussy about "coordination" sounding conspiratorial.

I'm the resident conspiracy theorist here, and my response to "it sounds conspiratorial" is "thanks for noticing".

Or the key could be suppression; no one's "suppressing it," they're just selectively ignoring it because it has some inconvenient features.

While I can't prove it in this specific case, it's not exactly uncommon for an editor/producer to kill a story.

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