site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31724 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.

This is one of the most foolish takes I've seen in the Motte. Libraries are not obsolete - in fact they are more important than ever in my view. The primary goal of a library was never to actually educate the masses, it was to give bright young kids from poor backgrounds and opportunity to learn.

The goal is to let intelligent autodidacts teach themselves and make something of themselves in a way they couldn't without a library. It's also one of the few true community spaces we have left in the Western world. For shame.

The goal is to let intelligent autodidacts teach themselves

Exactly. This policy is precisely the type of thing that people here complain about in every other context: A policy that focuses on troublemakers, to the detriment of a talented elite.

  1. They do if they are immigrants
  2. This is high school. Other than art and PE, the kids we are talking about are mostly in advanced classes in which the troublemakers are not enrolled.

People arguing against libraries in general may be doing that, but I don't see how this policy does.

It is replacing libraries, which OP notes harms the elite minority of intelligent didacts which uses libraries, with detention centers for troublemakers. Hence, it "focuses on troublemakers, to the detriment of a talented elite."

TheDag was responding to AshLael, who was saying that libraries as a whole are obsolete. They were not discussing the policy from the OP, which still keeps the books in schools, and lets the kids borrow them.

The fact that the books are still capable of being borrowed diminishes the harm, but does not completely eliminate it. People after all, regular browse books in libraries without checking them out. I can browse 10 books in an hour in a library. I am not going to take 10 books home on the bus inmy backpack. Not to mention that every book I take home is unavailable for every other kid. Not so a book that I browse and put back on the shelf. No matter how you slice it, the costs of this policy are almost entirely borne by those intellectually curious kids.

I am not going to take 10 books home on the bus inmy backpack.

I've done this plenty of times :)

Not no matter how you slice it - it depends how well the libraries were run, and how big the problems with discipline are.

I'm also not sure I buy the idea that people would complain about "in every other context", chances are you're just misunderstanding their position.

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