site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   35216 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Porque no los dos? In such cases, I'm open to "she's trying a cash grab" and "he's a bit slimy" when it comes to celebs. Some people, yeah, you'll go "come off it, he/she is not that type of person" but others it'll be "okay, I could see this happening".

Oh certainly, my larger take during that conversation was “Everyone in Hollywood is a scumbag, I’m sure Jonathan Majors is involved in all sorts of grimy shit, and I wasn’t going to watch his stupid movies either way.” It’s obviously tawdry that a man with his level of resources and opportunities, someone who had the pinnacle of career success at his fingertips, threw it all away because he couldn’t restrain himself from getting involved in shameful affairs with loose women. (Many such cases.) I just don’t think he’s guilty of the particularly lurid allegations that were leveled against him. Not like I’m invested in this because “Phew, now I can be a Jonathan Majors fan again.” I hadn’t even heard of the guy before the allegations came out, because due to my intimate experiences with them, I fucking hate actors.

The "Porque no los dos?" position amounts to washing your hands of the facts of the matter and treating both positions as equally valid. Which is equivalent to supporting the least-just position. Majors may or may not be a bit slimy, but he apparently not only didn't do what he was accused of, but was wronged himself (besides the false accusation) by the woman in question. Taking the position that the consequences he suffered as a result of these false accusations are OK because "he's a bit slimy" is not some middle high ground, but siding with injustice.

If he didn't do it then he should not be punished. But in a "he said, she said" situation where I don't know either party and there are allegations about both sides being less than great, I'm not going to pick a side and jump on it - see Amber Heard versus Johnny Depp. If I don't know enough, I will entertain "maybe he is a slimeball" and "maybe she's a gold-digger" as potential explanations until more information to settle the question one way or the other comes out.

And it is possible "he's a slimeball, but he didn't do this" or "she's a gold-digger, but it did happen that way" are true.

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