site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31722 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 24, 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.

Oh, really? Who would that be?

How many would you like me to direct you to? I have a character limit here. The whole mainstream progressive wing of the left, including mainstream punditry. The liberal stranglehold over the whole Ivy League. Most people living in deeply blue state’s, with ties to the Democratic Party. What are you looking for? Lol.

Your conduct throughout this thread has been pretty belligerent, condescending, and full of sneering, but this one stands out for the obnoxious "Lol" at the end, so this is the one I'm attaching a warning to. Calm down and be less antagonistic.

I was hoping you’d have a smoking gun of Colbert saying reality was “socially constructed.”

I’ll settle for any major politician or pundit saying that. I don’t believe it’s actually a common sentiment. Not among people who’ve worked a non-advocacy job.

I’ll settle for any major politician or pundit saying that. I don’t believe it’s actually a common sentiment.

It being dead center at the heart of woke ideology is good enough for me. But if that doesn’t do it for people, I suppose virtually nothing will. That has been obvious now for over a decade.

While she does not say, "I am a strict constructivist", I think this clip of Kentanji Brown-Jackson makes it clear that she adheres strongly to constructivism. It's also possible that she's simply lying to avoid question, but her mannerisms and verbiage are consistent with a sincere belief that "woman" isn't really something that one could define based on their perception of the world, but strictly requires additional context.

That’s a pretty good point. I should have thought about the legal profession.

I have a sense that some jobs—activists, blog-journalists, certain academics—have postmodernism in the job description. Law feels like it’s in that category. I want to discount them, but in the interest of not moving the goalposts, I guess I’m convinced.

As a lawyer I can confirm, but there's nothing inherently right-wing or left-wing about any of it. I have a deposition tomorrow where I'm going to ask some poor retiree about 500 questions, the vast majority of which I know he doesn't know the answer to and that he knows I couldn't possibly think he knows the answer to. I'm going to ask him for specific details about pieces of insustrial machinery he says he worked with in the 1970s. For instance, if he brings up a particular brand of industrial compressor I'm going to ask him when the first time he saw the brand was, how he was able to identify the brand, when the last time he saw it was, how many of that brand were in the facility, what each one he remembered specificly did, if he associated it with any particular color, detailed description of what it looked like, how it worked, what it was used for. And if he has the misfortune of actually being able to answer any of these questions in the affirmative then it will only lead to more questions pushing for more specifics. But I need to do this because whenever I go into negotiations with opposing counsel I can't just assume he doesn't know all of this (it's good for my client that he doesn't know), because if I do opposing counsel will ask to see where on the record it is that he says he doesn't know and now I don't have as much negotiating power. Every detail matters, every term must be defined, every hair must be split. If I don't do all that it's a disservice to my client.

Why would you do this thing?

It's asbestos litigation. If he's claiming his mesothelioma was caused in part by exposure to asbestos-containing gaskets my client used in its compressor, I want to distance him from my client's products as much as possible. Chances are, all he remembers is the name, and if that's the case then I can get a much better settlement than if he was a millwright who remembers specific instances of tearing the compressor apart to change the gaskets and kicking up asbestos dust. I already know that my client had some products in the mill, so there's going to be liability, but if I can demonstrate to opposing counsel that the guy can't tell me jack shit about anything specific it's less likely that a jury will find my client liable and more likely that the plaintiff will settle for a lower amount. But to do that I need to ask a ton of questions to actually show that the guy knows jack shit, especially considering that he might not survive until trial and the deposition will be the only testimony the jury sees. If all they see is him naming the product then it's lights out for my client.

Do you think if you asked Joe Biden “what is a woman” that he would say a biological woman or “someone who identifies as a woman?” Biden might fuck up the answer but still.

Honestly? Complete wild card. Dude could start talking about his childhood and I wouldn't be surprised.

Thing is, we're getting pretty far removed from "thinking reality is socially constructed." Gender issues are a good example of how the party line sort of awkwardly stumbles when it approaches constructivism and other rhetorical extremes. I am reluctant to say that nodding along with the fringe of one's party is the same as really accepting their premises about reality.

Compare the kritik from (college) debate.

But that seems impossible to prove. It amounts to “When we nod along (and indeed support things like so called gender affirming care) we don’t really believe it.” Maybe but that’s damning of itself.

Yeah. I think it’s pretty common for tribal beliefs, where closing ranks is more adaptive than studying philosophy. “What is a woman?” triggers those instincts—notice how both your sample answers are tribally charged. “Biological woman” is a phrase that basically only exists in this CW context.

There is definitely a fringe of liberals with really strong opinions about gender. In the process of playing this definitional game, they will say constructivist things. Sometimes normies will parrot them.

The real question is whether they will apply that logic anywhere else. I think the answer is usually “no,” even among the ones who are coming up with constructivist slogans. Racial self-ID, sovereign citizenship, it’s all outside the Overton window for most people. It’s way easier to apply rhetoric to a narrow field than to try and generalize it.

I think this is why legal scholarship gets constructivist really quickly. Since the subject of a case is so narrowly defined, suspending disbelief and reasoning about definitions is an easier sell.

"Listen Jack! A woman is a woman and she knows it! God save the Queen!"

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