site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30382 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 8, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think it's illuminating to see how many people on TheMotte both loathe mentally ill homeless people so much and are so authoritarian that their desired solution to the mentally ill homeless problem is to kill them all.

How many people on the TheMotte believe this? Cite me the actual comment where someone said "that their desired solution to the mentally ill homeless problem is to kill them all" and let us look at how many upvotes it got.

How could I credibly answer “no, this is a terrible tragedy, I never wanted to take someone’s life” when I’ve got a backlog of posts here saying explicitly that I believe that schizophrenic street criminals’ lives have no value whatsoever and that the world would be better if all of them were summarily rounded up and sent to gulags or executed?

34 upvotes

That poster also calls the event "a tragic and unforeseen accident."

No, Skibboleth correctly interpreted my comment. The bit about Neely’s death being a tragic and unforeseen accident is from the perspective of Dan Penny, who by all accounts did not intend to kill Neely and almost certainly does view the situation as tragic. I do not view it as tragic, and the measures I’m calling for would be neither unforeseen nor accidental.

Aw, man. Look, the world would be a better place without a lot of people. We would have more resources if we rounded up the disabled, the elderly, everyone below the bottom quartile of IQ, and all crime-causers, and executed them all. That obviously doesn't make it the right thing to do. I want to live in a society that takes care of me (and others) even if I develop a mental illness through no fault of my own.

I agree that we are at times a bit too sympathetic to troublemakers but you're about 100x too extreme in the opposite direction.

you're about 100x too extreme in the opposite direction.

I understand that, and I have no illusions that my very hardline position will be implemented. I’m anchoring the right end of the distribution of possible positions, and I recognize that the real future approach will ideally be somewhere in between mine and what we have now.

I recognize that the real future approach will ideally be somewhere in between mine and what we have now.

Wait I'm confused. Are you advocating for a position more extreme than what you actually believe in an attempt to manipulate society (or this forum?) towards achieving/supporting a middle ground?

What I meant by this is that it’s also possible that the future approach will be even farther left than what we have now. That the current regime not only persists but grows even stronger and more secure in its moral/legal hegemony. Compared to that outcome, I’d be happy with a compromise position located somewhere in the general direction of my position.

Societies need to value the sanctity of life above almost anything else or we will simply become evil. You are basically advocating for a super-holocaust. Even if it were initially justified it would create a society of super-nazis that would deserve to live much less than their victims did.

Is it accurate to summarize your post and your views by saying that your "desired solution to the mentally ill homeless problem is to kill them all"? If this is not an accurate summary, how is it it inaccurate, and what is your actual "desired solution"?

Not all of them, but a substantial portion. I would like to live under a state with the capacity, the credibility, and the sovereignty to effectively carry out this policy, with the legitimate support of the public, but given the current state of our ruling elite I would settle for mass vigilantism. Note that this is specifically about the chronically homeless, the ones who have conclusively and consistently demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to respond productively to less punitive opportunities for self-betterment. The ones with long criminal records, no recent record of employment or stable contributions to society.

What is your response to the argument that "not killing undesirables" is an important principle shielding societies from state and/or mob tyranny? I am aware that you are considering the current situation as a tyranny of the deranged, but I'm not sure the math of your trade-off checks out.

I assume he’s thinking of this and related discussion. Downvoted, though I find that to be a terrible proxy for actual belief.

@zeke5123

No, I do not want more censorship on TheMotte and I do not want to see such posts modded or such users permabanned. Although I find the opinions that I criticized to be distasteful and as you see I am comfortable saying so, I do not want to see opinions policed here.

I wouldn't call that a perfect representation since not every upvote means agreement

Indeed. I find the policy suggestion in the post maximally wrong but it is an earnest engagement with the topic and an effort post.

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