site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29464 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 7, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The mistake all these people made was in being forced to defend their positions.

The Socratic method, employed adversarially, makes fools of us all. Instead of accepting the frame of their interlocutor, they should have flipped the script.

"So you think that up until the baby enters the birth canal, the mother is free to kill it?"

Instead of answering directly say: "And you think that the second a sperm fertilizes an egg, it's a human? What kind of position is that?"

"Answer my question".

"You answer mine first and then I'll go".

The Socratic method, employed adversarially, makes fools of us all. Instead of accepting the frame of their interlocutor, they should have flipped the script.

The infamous Channel 4 interview of Jordan Peterson shows how the Socratic method can backfire on someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're doing. Cathy Newman has yet to live that down, people still talk about it 5 years on.

"And you think that the second a sperm fertilizes an egg, it's a human? What kind of position is that?"

"The correct one. Unless you have some reliable evidence to demonstrate when the fetus is otherwise endowed with 'humanity.'"

I love biting bullets.

If only because it then forces THEM to wade into the mire of uncertainty which they have even less of a map of than I do.

Of course they can just shut down the conversation there and say "you're an insane ideologue/religious extremist and I won't argue with such absurd beliefs" but then they betray they weren't acting in good faith to begin with, just looking for the first chance to ad hominem me.

The Socratic method, employed adversarially, makes fools of us all. Instead of accepting the frame of their interlocutor, they should have flipped the script.

Or maybe some people make fools of themselves?

Tim Pool hardly pulled off some brilliant or devious maneuver here. Nothing here would be out of place in an early philosophy seminar.

He simply asked Lance a couple of questions to tease out his position, and Lance admirably admitted something a lot on his side probably believe: "bodily autonomy" is the strongest legal argument for abortion but the point of abortion is to avoid this issue. If tomorrow a 5 week-old baby was viable that basic, pressing issue of work that helps the pro-choice movement would remain.

Of course, in politics people stay on message and avoid traps like this (god bless audience-captured Youtubers). But that doesn't mean it's not actually a legitimate tension to try to bring to light and that its not a good thing for people to know

"You answer mine first and then I'll go".

Not playing because you don't think you can answer in a way favorable to your cause is actual bad faith, as opposed to asking questions to tease out an opponents position and discovering he simply holds incoherent combinations or even answering and then launching your own questions.

Not playing because you don't think you can answer in a way favorable to your cause is actual bad faith, as opposed to asking questions to tease out an opponents position

Yes, I agree. But I think the bad faith is deserved. These weren't adversarial collaborations, they were just adversarial. If my goal is to make you look bad, you are under no obligation to play along. These interviews were never truth-seeking endeavors.

I don't agree. I can use MMA as an example: you don't have to fight your opponent's game (in fact, you're given an incentive to exploit the holes in their game), but some amount of actual fighting is not just expected, it's required under the rules (timidity is a sanctionable offense).

Something not being a collaboration doesn't mean that there aren't rules or standards of behavior meant to extract the goods from that endeavor. It was fair to ask Rufo/whoever that question, it's fair for Rufo/whoever to answer and then pull their own uncomfortable question. "Not until you go" is closer to timidity imo.

Otherwise why bother? Just don't deal with Robinson or the concept of debate at all. According to Rufo this has worked very well for the radical leftists he loathes, but isn't that part of why he loathes them?

He simply asked Lance a couple of questions to tease out his position, and Lance admirably admitted something a lot on his side probably believe: "bodily autonomy" is the strongest legal argument for abortion but the point of abortion is to avoid this issue. If tomorrow a 5 week-old baby was viable that basic, pressing issue of work that helps the pro-choice movement would remain.

I mean it is the most clearly announced motte & bailey argument I've seen, and it frustrates me to no end when people refuse to admit it. The main organisation championing it in the US, Planned Parenthood, is named after the bailey. But if you come with arguments that if women are given the choice of parenthood men should be given a choice too (to legally and financially renounce fatherhood) then woah bro! We're just talking about a medical procedure and bodily autonomy!

Not playing because you don't think you can answer in a way favorable to your cause is actual bad faith

Honestly, I kind of think it’s the opposite. Trying to trap your opponent between heresy and concession is a dick move in my opinion. If the position were genuinely hugely unpopular that might be a bit different. But in this case the debater is resorting to vox stasi rather than vox populi.

Personally I don’t think you can have a truly fair debate in any position where there’s an audience. Two people, in a pub, with a beer. Anything else is grandstanding and manipulation.

Trying to trap your opponent between heresy and concession is a dick move in my opinion.

Another way to frame it is "trying to find out your opponent's basic beliefs and how they interact . Which is essential to debate. Not even for "gotchas"; you have to know why Lance is pro-choice and why to even have a productive discussion.

It's Lance's fault he's so bad at organizing his beliefs that he trips when he has to consider them holistically.

As for whether it's "heresy": I mean, whose fault is it if your side considers it so? Not Tim's issue.

Personally I don’t think you can have a truly fair debate in any position where there’s an audience.

Maybe not. But we'll have to make do.

I think there’s a problem when those beliefs are widely considered heresy. Then you have the problem of having been asked to publicly commit to positions that poisoned the well. Asking if the founders are racist is asking a person to pre-commit to the idea that they were (and are thusly tainted) or deny it (and thus discredit yourself). In the case of the abortion debate, it’s about committing to frames (a woman’s choices are her alone to make, even while pregnant, or that the woman should have no choices while pregnant that might endanger the fetus).

I was thinking of Rufo. His opponent is not conducting a good-faith investigation of his beliefs in preparation for constructive discussion, he’s forcing him to admit to having taboo opinions in an environment where that will destroy him. Of course, I can’t know this with certainty but I feel pretty sure.

By contrast, with the abortion case, admitting that you think there are times it’s okay to force a woman to do something for the sake of her unborn child is pretty bad for the guy’s specific argument but it’s not going to get you unpersoned or debanked.

he’s forcing him to admit to having taboo opinions in an environment where that will destroy him

If you're referring to "Jefferson was a racist" why is that taboo and how would admitting to it destroy Rufo?

Not Tim's issue.

Ad hominem attacks don't become not dick moves, just because they are based upon characteristics of its victims and not aggressors. That it isn't Tim creating the enviroment which considers valid arguments immoral, but merely exploiting it, doesn't make him in the right.

It's not an ad hominem. It's simply things inconvenient to admit in the target's milieu.

If that counts as a dick move in debate then the entire concept is a dick move. It's an absurd standard.

No religious debate could ever happen if one party couldn't poke the other's beliefs because they might have to choose between sticking with incoherency and saying something that's unpopular.

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