site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   37203 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.

Consent is a sort of ideal system that works in all the easy cases and just about none of the hard ones. I suppose it is a good, fictional, moral system. But practically systems need to deal with the hard cases. A closed door rule works better almost all the time. As does a chaperon rule. Or a ban on premarital sex that is enforced against adults but not minors.

Consent, has the weakness in that it breaks down wherever it is pushed on. It gives you polygamy and pedophilia, and takes away sexual adventurism more or less randomly (from the point of the accused, and often the accuser).

A closed door rule works better almost all the time. As does a chaperon rule. Or a ban on premarital sex that is enforced against adults but not minors.

Are these rules meant for reducing sexual coercion? I am not sure what flaw of the consent based morality you think these rules can fix.

but then you say that it

takes away sexual adventurism more or less randomly

which your proposals all do even more.

yes, it is hard to prove that consent occurred but I don't think this justifies further restrictions on sexual freedom. If a woman wants to be safe, they can take precautions when around men. And if your problem is that it is too easy to falsely accuse people of sexual coercion then the solution is to raise the bar for evidence required to the 'innocent until proven guilty' level.

which your proposals all do even more.

No. My proposals restrict sexual freedom very non-randomly.

And if your problem is that it is too easy to falsely accuse people of sexual coercion then the solution is to raise the bar for evidence required to the 'innocent until proven guilty' level.

That is, indeed, one of my problems. The solution of raising the bar has proven unpalatable to the people who are most on board with the consent standard (evidenced by college campuses, #believeallwomen, etc), and isn't even really the legal standard. Where it is well applied in the law, the consent portion makes up a trivial part of the legal trial.

Do you want society to place additional restrictions on sexual freedom mostly so that less people fall victim to sexual coercion, or are there other causes for which you think that certain restrictions are warranted?

Do you want society to place additional restrictions on sexual freedom mostly so that less people fall victim to sexual coercion

Not really. I think that idea has motte-bailey'd itself so hard that there is no there there. Sexual cohersion that does not fall into old common law crimes is a small problem. Its not something a sexual morality or legal system should worry itself much with.

other causes for which you think that certain restrictions are warranted?

Indeed. For example, sexual confusion is the much bigger problem in society. There is a real lack of courtship norms, a real lack of understanding what a relationship is and what its boundaries are (even for many people's marriages), and there is the problem of the confusing hookup (all examples of a wide problem).

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