site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33459 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.

And note that you have now changed the subject.

No I haven't, but before we get on to that, what I would like to note, is that you're still refusing to say you'd see no issue in the white teacher who used to be bullied by black kids example.

The claim was that the teacher was "practic[ing] that discrimination against others." I.e., bullying others, or somehow harming others.

Yeah, giving preferential treatment to students you like more is, in fact, bullying, and harming others.

Especially where, in the context of the quote, that means providing emotional support, or sponsoring an LGBT club, or the like (which is perfectly ethical).

I see no reason why I should assume that's what it means in the context of the quote. Also, preferential treatment in providing emotional support is still discrimination.

There is no evidence that this guy is doing anything other than that, and your insistence otherwise says more about your biases than his.

I'm not insisting on anything, you asked me whether or not I would be ok with a conservative teacher making an analogous video, and I explained why it would be wrong. Stop putting words in my mouth, and concede you were wrong, please.

Also, preferential treatment in providing emotional support is still discrimination.

It is not discriminating against others, as the OP claimed.

I'm not insisting on anything,

  1. You wrote in defense of someone who made that exact claim.

  2. You said, "a teacher that does upload this sort of stuff to TikTok is very likely engaging in discriminatory behavior."

It is not discriminating against others, as the OP claimed.

How is preferential treatment not discrimination? Aren't they basically synonyms?

You wrote in defense of someone who made that exact claim.

By making an analogy to a white teacher bullied by black kids, which you are refusing to engage with for the third time. Why?

You said, "a teacher that does upload this sort of stuff to TikTok is very likely engaging in discriminatory behavior."

"Given my experience with how people behave, I think it's reasonable to believe a teacher who acts this way is discriminating his students" is not "insisting" a specific teacher must be engaging in specific behavior. You're entitled to believe the guy is a perfectly fine teacher, but you seemed confused as to why anyone could disagree, I was trying to explain where this belief is coming from.

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