site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   38760 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 2022

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.

40
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You're applying a mind-killingly low threshold of evidence for something you want to believe. This is the sort of "thinking" that fuels TDS, and you're just as ill.

It is incredible to assert that the situation bears no resemblance to disaster relief. These people were being set up in... disaster relief housing.

I can't find anything authoritative actually saying that these national guardsmen actually moved the immigrants. But enjoy citing vague articles and feeling superior.

It is incredible to assert that the situation bears no resemblance to disaster relief.

In a disaster, soldiers are useful in two ways: as immediate, capable manpower for strenuous physical activities like filling sandbags, cutting firebreaks, shifting rubble, searching for injured victims and so on, and as security against looting, chaos, and disobedience and disruption on the part of recalcitrant civilians.

Neither of these uses appear to apply in the case of the migrants. There was no rubble to shift, no sandbags to fill, no heavy labor to be done. There was no riot or disruption either. So why were they there? What were they doing?

I think they were there as intimidation: a big group of tough guys in uniform, outnumbering the migrants by a significant margin, making it clear that they were not welcome and should move along forthwith. You've given no argument at all for what they were doing, beyond vague and implausible appeals to "disaster relief." How would that actually work? What were the authorities doing that required 150 soldiers to show up and assist, in your mind? Was it carrying luggage? Handing out water bottles?

You're applying a mind-killingly low threshold of evidence for something you want to believe.

On the contrary, I think you are employing a mind-killingly high threshold for evidence for something you don't want to believe. I'm entirely comfortable with the fact that I could be wrong, and that there doesn't appear to be definitive proof available either way. If you actually want to offer a plausible scenario as to what 150 soldiers were doing to help a busload of migrants leave, I remain interested to hear it. But you appear to be taking offense at inferences drawn from what evidence is available, and I think that is foolish. We are not prohibited from drawing inferences here, only from being dogmatic and rude about it.

In a disaster, soldiers are useful in two ways: as immediate, capable manpower for strenuous physical activities like filling sandbags, cutting firebreaks, shifting rubble, searching for injured victims and so on, and as security against looting, chaos, and disobedience and disruption on the part of recalcitrant civilians.

Blatently false. Maybe this'll get through to you, but I suspect not.

After Katrina, 123 members of the national guard was activated to provide muscle at the disaster provide security provide sheltering capabilities at Joint Base Cape Cod for refugees.

And here in 2022, "the state will also activate up to 125 members of the National Guard to assist in the relief effort".

So in 2004 about 120 national guard members were activated to support refugees at Joint Base Cape cod... and in 2022 when about 120 national guard members were activated in conjunction with people being housed at Joint base Cape cod... it was for the purposes of intimidation. Hmmm!

If you actually want to offer a plausible scenario as to what 150 soldiers were doing to help a busload of migrants leave, I remain interested to hear it.

Where are you even getting this number of 150 soldiers?

After a quick perusal of your links, I think I'm wrong and you're correct. None of the photos actually show NG at Martha's Vineyard. Activating the National Guard seems to be a reference to ordering them to the base to help with taking care of the migrants, not ordering them to MV to collect the migrants. My guess is ~125 guardsmen is the size of a platoon or whatever, given the consistent amounts. I thought I got the number 150 from elsewhere in the thread, but the post I checked reads 125 now, so it might just be my own fault. I cheerfully retract any claims about National Guard being used for intimidation.

I am impressed by your willingness to reconsider.

I definitely concluded along the way that you weren't open minded, and I'm sorry for that.

It's all good. cheers, mate!

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