site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33502 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 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 will attempt to steelman this distinction.

Zoonotic/'bat soup' hypothesis: "Chinese people are, at the deepest level, no different from us. If we had wet markets selling live bats/pangolins/&c., we would be at the same risk of zoonotic disease outbreaks; if they didn't, they wouldn't."

Lab-leak hypothesis: "The Chinese were doing the same kind of research we were. Are you saying Chinese people can't be trusted with advanced technology?"

If one has these reactions, 'bat soup' seems less racist than 'lab leak', in the same way that Rudyard Kipling might seems seem less racist than Alexander Stephens.

Still doesn't hold for me. In one situation you are implying that their culture eats unclean and diseased animals. To me, there are a few very common major insults for other races/cultures:

  1. Denigrating their intelligence.

  2. Saying they are prone to violence.

  3. Saying they are dirty and unclean.

I guess the lab leak denigrates their intelligence a little bit. But the eating diseased creatures is clearly an example of calling them dirty and unclean.

And a nitpick on the lab-leak. They were specifically doing research that the US does not allow. Gain of function research was banned in the US, and was being carried out in other countries by US researchers to get around these restrictions.

I think it's closer to:

Zoonotic: It's no one's fault really. (since there isn't actually a human origin, just a transfer to humans)

Lab-leak: People were creating dangerous viruses, and accidentally released one.

The latter seems to lay more blame.

It's whether these reactions make any sense that is in question. Why does making a slip in complicated research result in "are you saying Chinese people can't be trusted with advanced technology?" but pointing at the widespread popularity of wet markets does not result in "are you saying Chinese people can't be trusted with distributing food?". The latter is literally invoking a racist stereotype against Asians.

Why does making a slip in complicated research result in "are you saying Chinese people can't be trusted with advanced technology?" but pointing at the widespread popularity of wet markets does not result in "are you saying Chinese people can't be trusted with distributing food?".

Because the latter can be explained as being from differing rates of adoption of universal culture (see comments below on western farmers' markets), whereas the former places the issue in one of the aspects of universal culture which the Chinese have already adopted.

This might raise uncomfortable questions regarding whether all peoples are equally capable of practising universal culture.

The latter is literally invoking a racist stereotype against Asians.

The former also links to racist tropes in that the 'lab leak' hypothesis is adjacent to, and often conflated with, a 'deliberate bio-weapon' hypothesis, which pattern-matches to the history of 'yellow peril' rhetoric involving underhanded tactics by Asians.

However, given a slightly different fall of the dice, I could see the 'wet market' hypothesis being the one denounced as racist, and all the (pre-Musk)* bluechecks endorsing the 'lab accident' hypothesis.

(*Or could Mr Musk's purchase of Twitter also be butterflied away...?)

Because the latter can be explained as being from differing rates of adoption of universal culture (see comments below on western farmers' markets), whereas the former places the issue in one of the aspects of universal culture which the Chinese have already adopted.

This might raise uncomfortable questions regarding whether all peoples are equally capable of practising universal culture.

I'm not seeing it. You can just as easily say the former shows they haven't adopted "universal culture" fully yet, or that it was an honest mistake that could have happened anywhere (and did! someone had a list of pan-/epidemics originating from a lab leak), while the latter raises uncomfortable questions about whether all peoples are equally capable of practising universal culture ("they can't even do something basic as running a food market in hygienic conditions").

The former also links to racist tropes in that the 'lab leak' hypothesis is adjacent to, and often conflated with, a 'deliberate bio-weapon' hypothesis, which pattern-matches to the history of 'yellow peril' rhetoric involving underhanded tactics by Asians.

Yeah, but it only makes sense if you conflate it with the bio-weapon hypothesis. Without it the whole idea falls apart.

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