site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31951 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 22, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think that in conjunction with the weakman and steelman, there needs to be a "realman" -- arguing against the steelman position is just as pointless if it's only held by a tiny minority as arguing against the weakman in the same position would be. The realman should consider what the most common defences in a particular debate are, not merely just the best.

And even then, I only really countenance steelmanning in ossified forums like this one, and never in real life; because at that point you're just handing your enemies better arguments.

How is this forum "ossified," as you've put it here? Sorry I am not positive I get your meaning or why, if I do get it, you believe this ossification is so self-evident?

Basically what @Pongalh said. Rationalist talk a big game about "rising above" and "avoiding sloppy thinking" right up to the moment doing so runs up against the interests or biases of progressive costal urbanites at which point all bets are off.

Post-liberalism has accepted as good everything ugly about politics the rationalists wanted us to get past. Clickbait is good. Sensationalism is good. Treating arguments as soldiers is good. Thinking ideologically is good. Just picking a damn side already is good. Thinking of people as ultimately political and not having some valuable quality that is outside of politics is good.

And so on.

Discussion like this is very much a relic of the older internet, even if it does insist on using the reddit interface instead of the more traditional forums setup. The whole place is shielded in time and away from relevance.

Relevance to whom? You seem to be suggesting that the setup and dynamic (as opposed to the content) of the forum is the problem.

Relevance to the wider world. There is no influence here, nobody with power knows this place exists.

And even then, I only really countenance steelmanning in ossified forums like this one, and never in real life; because at that point you're just handing your enemies better arguments.

Why would that matter?

Let's say you give them a convincing argument for X and they use it. If it's so good that people are convinced, then doesn't that imply it was actually valid?

Because then I am helping my enemy and working against my own preferred outcomes? What about this is difficult to understand?

Let's put it this way. I have come to believe, after my deliberations, position X. My opponents believe position Y. I, obviously, have considered position Y and rejected it. The argument they have for position Y, argument Y1, is a weak argument. If I argue my reasoning X1 against it, they might concede. If instead I hand them stronger argument Y2, and then argue X1 against it, they might not concede.

Considering that I still believe position X is more correct that position Y, by handing argument Y2 over and preventing them from switching sides to position X, or at the very least abandoning position Y, I am preventing an increase in people holding the position I believe to be most correct. Surely, then, if I truly believe position X is the greater good, I should not do this?

This kind of assumes that the only thing that matters is convincing people to switch sides in the short term. This may be valid for elections and highly charged issues but the idea behind steelmanning is that you don't just change a mind, you foster genuine understanding of the nuance of an issue which will help people form more robust opinions and ideas on new issues.

If instead I hand them stronger argument Y2, and then argue X1 against it, they might not concede.

Why wouldn't you argue X2 against Y2?

Why would you argue y2 when you could be constructing x3?

Well, we don't have argument Y3 yet, so...

Because I should always be leading with my strongest arguments?

No, not my point.

Suppose you refute Y1, then steelman and give them Y2. What stops you from also mentioning "Oh, by the way, Y2 is also false for the following reasons"?

Because people are emotional and will cling to their prior conclusions if at all possible.

If you can destroy, utterly humiliate, their Y1 argument which is why they hold Y belief in the first place, but have a much harder time arguing against Y2, you will be much easier to dismiss in the latter case. And they'll want to dismiss you, because everyone wants to have always been right all along.

I'm not convinced that "is a better argument" is always meaningful. If you're weighing evidence, an argument which brings up more and better evidence can be better than one which doesn't. But arguments which try to use logical reasoning, rather than probabilistic inferences, are either correct or not. You can't have a "better" argument of that type. You can have a more convincing one, but that's not the same thing.

If it's so good that people are convinced, then doesn't that imply it was actually valid?

Is this a serious question? Have you ever met an actual human being? Even the smart ones can be misled by compelling but ultimately flawed arguments and the bottom 95% are absolutely hopeless

I am assuming that argument A2 is better in all regards than A1. So for people to believe A2 is still to believe a more valid argument. But I agree that both can ultimately be wrong.

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