site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32320 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 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.

I have two things to say here:

  1. You apparently created this account for the sole purpose of attacking @HlynkaCG because you really dislike him. Creating a throwaway account just to prosecute a grudge against one person is pretty petty. I am in no way giving @HlynkaCG favorable treatment here or trying to protect him, but when your only comments are attacking him specifically (and I have to manually approve your comments to let them out of the filter), well, probably next time I won't bother.

  2. That said - @HlynkaCG, they're right. This is not speaking as a mod, so you are not being modded here, but speaking as a spectator who's more sympathetic to your POV on racial issues than @Hoffmeister25's, jesus, man, this is embarrassing. I award you the L and zero points. Do better.

I would like to argue that it's not my fault that these people are morons who can't read. but intellectual integrity require that I acknowledge that communication is a two way street and that the blame for a failure in communication must ultimately fall upon the communicator IE me.

You, @Hoffmeister25 @zeke5123 @somedude Et Al, are claiming that I made that I made specific factual claims but I don't see it that way, I simply extrapolated from what was presented, and I can't help but notice that no one here seems to have actually attacked my conclusion.

Listen, you criticized an author for not making a bunch of personal life choices that, oops, it turns out he did make. Then you criticized him for having a view of history that begins with WW2, when apparently he's written extensively about several different eras of history. Then you just doubled down nonsensically.

What exactly is anyone supposed to take away from this? Maybe you should just rewrite the post without all the sneering and fanfiction and try again.

I don't particularly like having all my posts be in response to you, but I also can't be motivated to post unless someone not only makes a bad argument but also rides it into the ground with their middle finger up, and that just happens to be a niche you have a monopoly on these days.

Probably has something to do with the fact that you're the only poster who can post shit talk like...

I would like to argue that it's not my fault that these people are morons who can't read. but intellectual integrity require that I acknowledge that communication is a two way street

...and get away with it despite having been temp banned a billion times. If Joe Blow rolled in off the street and pulled that shit he'd be history. Even Darwin managed to be superficially polite and mostly just stopped responding when he was really being handed an L.

No one except @Hoffmeister25 actually disagrees with your conclusion (white nationalists bad, white nationalism is intellectually incoherent). The problem is you are making a correct argument very badly by just throwing general attacks at and about white natuonalists, even when they don't actually apply. "I'm directionally correct" just looks like doubling down on an error. Like if I attacked Republicans for being a bunch of racist old white guys in response to a quote from Nikki Haley. I could (to be clear, I am not, this is just an example) argue that in general, the GOP favors and is favored by racist old white guys, but it still looks pretty stupid to be making that argument in this case and then saying "I don't even know who this Nikki Haley person is, I'm just talking about the Republican Party."

No one except @Hoffmeister25 actually disagrees with your conclusion (white nationalists bad, white nationalism is intellectually incoherent).

How is this not an extremely blatant violation of the rule against consensus-building and attempting to speak for the entire forum?

My apologies: I meant (and should have said) "No one of the people you mentioned"; I was not speaking for the entire forum.

That’s because I don’t really have a dog in the fight. Im not really interested in the goals of the white nationalists (even if I would want to reduce immigration from obviously troubled areas).

My comments were merely about the argument itself; not the conclusions drawn from the argument.

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