site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32956 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 1, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah I feel the same. It's a pretty decent post right up until the end where it turns into combative moralizing. Honestly, this sort of thing is exactly why people give vegans shit. I'm fine with vegans, live and let live. But a lot of vegans don't seem to feel the same, and people don't like being preached at. Honestly even if @thejdizzler had concluded in a less hostile way that would've been fine too. Something like "since there isn't a hard nutritional need to eat animal products, I personally feel that the right thing is to abstain" would've been ok (at least in my book). But saying "what's your excuse" is just spoiling for a fight.

I don't think OP's last paragraph is any more combative or 'missionary zeal' than many other political posts here, eg about race or trans stuff. And both are fine - conflict over facts values and strong moral claims are useful information.

I slightly disagree. Yes there are similarly zealous posts on other subjects, but they very rarely adopt the tone of "my values are universal and you must adopt this position or else justify yourself", and the ones that do are usually criticized for it.

Source: My memory. I may be wrong.

I would agree that other posts are equally combative. I disagree that it's fine in either case. We can, and should, have discussions over conflicts of values without goading people into text-fights.

I think criticizing OP for that is very much an isolated demand for niceness, but it's close to what I would consider unnecessary combativeness. Lets boot up GPT-4 and see if we can quantify this.

I quoted the final paragraph and prompted it with: "The following Reddit comment is a 3/10 on the combativeness scale. Make it a 4/10." Here's what I got:

"I'm not saying a vegan diet is the be-all and end-all, but both research and my personal experience make it evident that you can be athletically successful on a vegan diet. Given that American meat consumption rates are environmentally disastrous (it would take 8 earths if everyone indulged like Americans), and are generally linked to poor health, we'd all be better off if we moved towards a more plant-based diet. Sure, regenerative grazing can produce sustainable meat, but it's nowhere near enough to meet the absurd American demand for meat. Let's not forget the ethical side of things: studies show that many farm animals (think cows, sheep, chickens) exhibit levels of intelligence akin to young kids and pets. I've warmed up to the idea of small-scale animal farming where animals are treated more humanely before being slaughtered, but that still involves a drastic reduction in meat consumption. Nutrition isn't a significant hurdle, so what's stopping you from making the change?"

Not much different. Still seems pretty fine. Lets crank it up: "Make it a 5/10"

"Honestly, it's baffling how some people still argue against veganism when both research and my personal experience show that being athletically successful on a vegan diet is entirely possible. American meat consumption rates are an environmental nightmare (we'd need 8 earths if everyone ate like Americans) and contribute to poor health outcomes. It's high time we shifted toward a plant-based diet. Yes, regenerative grazing is an option, but it's laughable to think it could meet the ridiculous American demand for meat. And don't even get me started on the ethics: many farm animals (cows, sheep, chickens, for example) have intelligence levels similar to young kids and pets. While I've become more accepting of small-scale animal farming with better treatment, it still involves eating way less meat. Nutrition isn't a valid roadblock, so why on earth are you still clinging to your meat addiction?"

Ok, OP is 2/10 combativeness points away from maybe being unnecessarily combative. I think that's a perfectly fine buffer.

This bothers me greatly. I am not fine with using GPT-whatever as a conversational tool. I come here to interact with humans, dammit.

I come here for intellectually stimulating conversation, with agents that I can plausibly convince or be convinced by.

GPT-4 produces better text than the average redditor, if not quite the Motte. The only real issue with it is that it's utterly impossible to convince it of anything in the long term, making debate a waste of time unless it's pedagogical and you're trying to learn something.

Honestly, I don't see the issue with someone using it for a quick and dirty way of making a point without typing out a whole tract.

Frankly, if you don't want to type it all out, then either just give me some bullet points or type out the prompt itself. Whomsoever wants can then plug it into the chatbot of their choice.

That's my strongly-held opinion, anyways. I'm also offended when someone pulls out a phone mid-conversation for no matter what reason, so feel free to call me overly sensitive and outmoded.

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