site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31877 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Who cares?

Me. At least when I see the situation appearing to degrade rapidly and nobody in power expressing a plan and the people who express some plan being very aggressively unpersoned.

/r/mensrights recognized these issues back in 2012. Things have only deteriorated since then.

No matter how bad things get, there is an action a man can take towards a path up and out.

Even leaving aside the fact that 'death' is always in the cards (either suicide, or being forced into war, or a random encounter with extreme violence), there are plenty of situations where a person can get so ruined physically, mentally, or financially that recovery to any reasonable standard of living is scant. Becoming a quadripelegic, addicted to some of the nastier drugs, or following a heavy gambling addiction to it's 'logical' conclusion, for example. Hell, if you end up eating way too much and swell up to 600+ pounds the odds of you having any life that makes you truly happy is approximately zilch.

Or read Johnny Got His Gun and/or listen to the Metallica song based on it and tell me the legless, armless, blind, deaf, and mute soldier has a 'path up and out.'

In most cases these sorts of people drop out of visible society so survivorship and availability bias impact the sample that people actually observe when they say things like that.

I actually kinda hate this particular piece of rhetoric when overused, because it ultimately does make it seem like one should never avoid various risks if there's even the tiniest chance of upside, because 'the worst that can happen is you start over.' Well no. There's definitely virtue in realizing that riding a motorcycle without a helmet has some severe downsides which can be easily avoided, and that decisions you make CAN have immediate and unrecoverable consequences for yourself and others, and encouraging words don't change that.

Don't expect the world to be fair, don't expect anyone else to care that the world's unfair, and don't expect anyone else to notice the unfairness runs counter to the egalitarian principles that you were probably taught (I was, and it threw me for years). You'll be a lot less disappointed, and then you can start to build with clear eyes. Build yourself up, build a space for those you trust, build a space for your family and close friends, and maybe you can shelter some of those people from the unfairness.

Nonetheless, this is indeed the best advice you can give without knowing a man's specific situation.

Hell, if you end up eating way too much and swell up to 600+ pounds the odds of you having any life that makes you truly happy is approximately zilch.

That guy actually got surgery and lost the weight. But you're right about some things - namely, some people being royally fucked (quadriplegics, people in prison for life, some schizophrenics) and these kinds of people becoming invisible (they wind up in institutions of one kind or another and don't get out much).

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