site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   37124 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.

That's not the question you're dancing around.

Which questions are you referring to? I read the above conversation and didn't see anything aside from "This is why are you taking elementary school kids to drag shows and talking to them about how to give a good blow-job if you aren't trying to sexualize them? Why are you urging them not to tell their parents if you didn't know that you might be doing something their parents would object to?" and "What truth? What Claims?" and neither make sense

The first two three. What about them doesn't make sense? You tried to push back on one of them a little bit, and he explained why your argument does not address the question.

Well, I'm not doing those things.

And teachers are not, as far as I am aware, doing those things either. (As I said above, to whatever extent either is widespread, I'd be very wrong! Please evidence!). So the 'teachers something something sex' part of my claim wrong.

As for why elementary school students are being taken to drag shows by their parents - that's because the parents think drag shows are cool and awesome and progressive. Which just ... makes sense. It falls in the same category as 'why do some normie dads take 12 year olds to hooters' that various internet people get mad about. Neither are grooming! The first one can be bad without being grooming

I'm just going to echo what @arjin_ferman said here

"Progressives object when we ban it, therefore they are either doing it or, even if not, want to do it" ignores the general inanity of the culture war. If progressives tried to ban "super-child-killing-assault-rifles", conservatives might rightfully object because "super-child-killing-assault-rifles" do not exist, so what's being banned might be normal or useful guns, and at any rate 'assault rifles' and 'kids dying from guns' is not a significant enough issue to care about. Similarly, progressives might believe that 'trans child grooming' is rare, but object to attempts to ban it because they might target 'lgbt sex education for 16 year olds' or 'drag shows in general'. But most of it is just blatantly stupid reactions, like one high school in Rustbelt, Alabama removing a nsfw book from its library and ten stories in the next week about CONSERVATIVE CENSORSHIP. The libs are mad here, and mad for a stupid reason - but there's no real basis for that objection, the one nsfw book in a school library that'd be read by two children total over the next decade plays no role whatsoever in liberal goals, good or evil, it's just incoherent propaganda.

He countered by saying that if it's not happening it shouldn't be an issue to ban it, but progressives do protest the idea of a ban

People in politics aren't acting 'reasonably', you can't make inferences of the form 'reasonably, this shouldn't be an issue, but it is, therefore my (reasonable) opponents do have a deep interest in this', because your opponents aren't reasonable.

Sorry but I'm not buying it. Given the choice between believing you and "my lying eyes", I'm believing my eyes because you seem to be unironically invoking the old Merited Impossibility trope. "It's not happening and it's not going to happen but if it is happening you fuckers deserve it." Forgive me if I find that less than convincing.

And teachers are not, as far as I am aware, doing those things either. (As I said above, to whatever extent either is widespread, I'd be very wrong! Please evidence!).

So first of all, this isn't "his questions not making sense" this is you disagreeing with him on facts. He countered by saying that if it's not happening it shouldn't be an issue to ban it, but progressives do protest the idea of a ban. You countered with the "why are you accusing me of beating my wife" analogy, and he pointed out the analogy is false, it's more like passing a law against domestic abuse, and some group protesting about their rights being attacked. You never gave a response to that.

As to whether or not it's happening, it's not hard to find reports of it happening. You try to counter that by smuggling in "widespread", but whether or not something is widespread is not relevant. As I pointed out in another comment rape and murder are not widespread, should we legalize them?

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