site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   37122 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 10, 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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm not seeing much of an argument here. My take is grounded in the value of liberty, I can see some valid arguments for your position but I'm not going to put words in your mouth.

The problem with the "I'm not seeing an argument here" is that it's a fully general argument. For example, why should anyone value liberty?

I can give you a few that fit into your liberty framework, if sheer cosmic horror doesn't do it for you. For example, given the evolution of the internet, what makes you think we'll get Transhumanist Lalaland, where you get to do whatever you want, instead of one where you're bread, or modified on-the-fly to fit the fever dreams of some demented Gardener like Scott Alexander? Just because you can imagine a future where it doesn't happen, doesn't mean it's the most likely outcomes of that technology existing.

The problem with the "I'm not seeing an argument here" is that it's a fully general argument. For example, why should anyone value liberty?

You could at least start by getting down to the values you think are being violated. It's unnatural and disgusting to you, ok that's not nothing. I won't pretend to be all that convinced on what your disgust should override liberty but at least I can understand your position and agree to disagree. Your previous response was not this, it was just pure opposition and a strange kind of opposition that doesn't seem to really reflect reality as the right to engage in surrogacy is actually how society does operate and, besides the new fangled version with all the fancy tubes and needles there were other forms of surrogacy like harams.

I can give you a few that fit into your liberty framework, if sheer cosmic horror doesn't do it for you. For example, given the evolution of the internet, what makes you think we'll get Transhumanist Lalaland, where you get to do whatever you want, instead of one where you're bread, or modified on-the-fly to fit the fever dreams of some demented Gardener like Scott Alexander? Just because you can imagine a future where it doesn't happen, doesn't mean it's the most likely outcomes of that technology existing.

Short of a Butlerian jihad I've made my peace with what will be, technology is coming whether I want it to or not. I may as well attempt to adopt it into the values framework I have to work with.

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