site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30730 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I suppose the only real objection is that it's somehow undignified to execute someone that way.

On the contrary! Kinetic force is a far more dignified way to die than poison. Physical destruction is the proper end for a being who conducts himself uprightly: the only way I will allow myself to die is in direct confrontation with a strength that is greater than my own. Poison is a ghastly and alien force that works by subterfuge instead of direct engagement; it exposes the fundamental precarity of the biological organism in such a shameful way, it smothers and effaces the vital force instead of allowing it to make a proper last stand.

(I have sometimes meditated on the significance of the fact that female serial killers are more likely to use poison than male serial killers.)

"Deleuze extolled the virtues of becoming-child, becoming-woman, the rhizomatic over the arborescent - but he committed suicide by jumping out of a window. What could be more arborescent than that? A straight drop from top to bottom, a hierarchical relationship. Poison would be a truly rhizomatic way to die - why didn't he use poison? Isn't that the final refutation of his philosophy?"

Your value judgements on manner of death don't make sense. "A strength that is greater than your own" can be interpreted in a great many number of ways.

An adult human is capable of 2 kW from time to time. It's pretty easy to buy sodium lightbulbs that are rated at 1000 Watts. By that logic, it's somehow not-shameful to die to three large grow lights - whether by burning or by a slow increase in heat or some other creative method- but not by one large grow light.

How?

If you're cycling...a Joe off the street, untrained, can probably do around 600 watts. A guy that half-asses cycling and doesn't have much sprinting talent might do 1,000. A solid amateur, 1,300. 2,000 watts is a very high number: a large, talented, dedicated amateur or a professional might be able to put down that much power.

I'll bite the bullet.

Three lightbulbs good, one lightbulb bad.

Have you ever had to put down a family pet? If so, what was the method? If not, what method would you use? I’d be very interested in hearing what type of kinetic force you would use on your dog or cat to relieve them of their suffering.

I don't really share your views regarding poison being some extra evil forms of killing, if I was marked for death I find myself strictly agnostic to the means as long as it's quick and as painless as possible.

I'd still like to know it was coming so I can settle my final affairs.

I mostly agree, but Plato's death seemed to me to be a righteous way to go.

I’m assuming you meant Socrates.

Yes. For some reason, I always confuse which of them took the hemlock.

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