site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29444 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It took quite awhile for false flags we happen to know about to come to light.

The attack on the USS Liberty, by all appearances, was a false flag, but saying so is the domain of conspiracy theorists.

Wait, a false flag by whom?

It looks pretty straightforward Israel-on-US to me.

It does now, the false flag would be Israel trying to make the US believe that an adversary of Israel sank the boat.

Oh.

But they did it with aircraft that only they operated. And flagged Israeli speedboats.

I understand the potential motivation to get us bombing Egypt, but this doesn’t seem like a very good way to go about it.

If your plan is to allow for no survivors, it makes no sense to create more evidence of your false flag operation.

I think it’s likely that the attack was planned by an underling and scuttled by a superior who had no prior knowledge, and that explains why survivors were allowed to live.

Right. Just the police knew. The police fuck up cases all the time, sometimes corruptly. I think corruptly in his case.

The police did not fuck it up, they were told to stand down by a higher authority.

Also, lots of people knew that it happened, they were being called conspiracy theorists for years before the truth finally came out.

A false flag however requires that everyone know it happened.

It requires people to know that an event took place, but it requires next to no one to know it was a false flag.

A large conspiracy will collapse under the massive scrutiny that such an event will inevitably come under

A false flag doesn't have to be a large conspiracy, and there's no evidence such an event would come under scrutiny by anyone who's not a conspiracy theorist.

If the police were protecting Epstein initially, whatever motive they had for protecting him evaporated after the Miami Herald ran a story years later about what a sweetheart deal he got. Prosecutors went out on a limb to convict him again and track down his missing accomplice. And the story wasn't even that big until after the indictment. If there were some huge baked-in motive for protecting Epstein, it would have been really easy for the New York prosecutor to simply say that he felt double jeopardy precluded him from prosecuting. Epstein wasn't exactly a household name before his most recent legal troubles.

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