site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32964 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.

I'd be open to an argument that it's unusual for an American politician to sign a bill while traveling abroad

This just seems super disingenuous. This isn't just "an American politician signing a bill while traveling abroad", it's a Florida presidential hopeful signing a hate speech law in Jerusalem.

though your implied "Because Da Joos told him to" needs a lot more groundwork.

Ok, so what's your theory for why this happened? Are you just going to say the same thing but in different terms? He's trying to get support for his campaign.

As I said, I am open to the argument. You haven't made one. You just keep saying "Israel" like that's enough of an argument. Seriously, tell me that this is a first, or that no one has ever done this in any country but Israel, or anything else that would support anything beyond your unstated Dark Hinting. Is De Santis trying to curry favor with Jewish voters? Absolutely. There are, in fact, a lot of Jewish voters in Florida. No ZOG conspiracies are necessary to explain this.

Other than that one word "secret", can you just copy + paste the part of my post where you think I didn't substantiate it with an argument?

That one word "secret" is doing a lot of work here. You went out of your way to emphasize it, with a (!) and everything.

It took quite a few back and forths for you to retreat to "Okay, it wasn't secret but it wasn't publicized" and then to "Okay, it was publicized, but it's still shady dammit!"

As far as the law itself, I don't have strong feelings about it, though I am as skeptical as most here about hate speech laws in general.

The gist of your post, however, is clearly "DeSantis is enacting pro-Jew legislation at the behest of the Jews who actually run the United States, trying to make it illegal to criticize Jews." You don't say this, as you never spell out what you handwave at, because if you did spell out your actual arguments, they would be much easier to copy+paste and point out the unsubstantiated parts. But other people in the thread have done a pretty good job of knocking them down anyway.

Hence, I'm calling out the "secret" part.

That one word "secret" is doing a lot of work here.

Ok, let's try removing that word and reading the rest of the post. Do you think the meaning of the post is different? I think it is extremely significant that DeSantis is signing hate speech legislation in Jerusalem. That is worth many (!!!) in my book.

The gist of your post, however, is clearly "DeSantis is enacting pro-Jew legislation at the behest of the Jews who actually run the United States, trying to make it illegal to criticize Jews."

Would you say that's a charitable interpretation of my post?

But let's continue on. Let's say that DeSantis did not do this because Jews wanted him to. Why, then, did he sign this law in Jerusalem? What's your theory, if it wasn't to cater to Jewish interests?

Would you say that's a charitable interpretation of my post?

Would you? If it is uncharitable, then why is it extremely significant that DeSantis is signing hate speech legislation in Jerusalem?

But let's continue on. Let's say that DeSantis did not do this because Jews wanted him to.

I think DeSantis did do it because Jews wanted him to. I do not think he did it because The Jews wanted him to.

Do you see the difference?

I see a politician pandering to some of his voters. I don't see it as meaningfully different from pandering to any other constituency. You evidently see something different. What is it?

Do you see the difference?

Can you explain the difference, and explain why DeSantis signing this law in Jerusalem has no bearing on the lobbying or interests of "The Jews?" Or are you saying there are no "The Jews", it's just Jewish voters?

Or are you saying there are no "The Jews", it's just Jewish voters?

Yes, that is what I'm saying. If DeSantis panders to Christians or Cubans or Asians, do you see a Christian, Cuban, or Asian cabal?

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