site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31309 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 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.

A dictator who murdered thousands and imprisoned and tortured tens of thousands of people is not benevolent.

Park Chung-Hee and Lee Kwan Yew and Paul Kagame no doubt invite their opposition leaders to give conferences in five star hotels.

Honestly I think a big part of the difference in western attitude towards those three from the Latin generalissimos is that the critics of the latter are more sympathetic to the western literati, rather than actual behavior and results.

Presumably Park, Lee, and Kagame also don't escalate to systematic murder. I would especially hope not in Kagame's case, as the Rwandan Genocide most likely gave his people the moral high ground of subjugating genocidaires, even when they started shit with Zimbabwe.

The economic gains from removing communists makes the helicopter fuel pay for itself.

Low effort and just waging culture war.

If you seriously believe murdering communists is a good thing, you need to put a lot more effort into what you want to say.

If you're just trying to be funny, don't.

Why does that matter? He killed the right people (communists). And put the country on a path to have the highest per capita income in the region.

It’s not like these other dictators didn’t kill and imprison people.

As I told someone else, "Yes, actually, murdering all my political enemies is a good thing" is inflammatory enough to require more than a low effort hot take like this.

And you've been posting a lot of crappy comments like this, and apparently bans and warnings aren't making an impression.

So while this comment itself was only a little bit bad, you're getting another one-week ban because we're tired of you posting one "little bit bad" comment after another.

Expect future bans to escalate.

When communism had a body count well into the tens of millions in the half century prior to the events described, “political enemies” does not do the category justice.

You are allowed to talk about how much you hate communism here, but if you want to say "killing communists is good" - which presumably would include everyone from Marxist revolutionaries to your local Marxist college professor - you need to put a lot more effort into explaining how murdering your political enemies is a good and justifiable thing. Not with low effort comments like the OP's.

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