site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30623 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 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.

Not everyone can, or will, take the red pill.

Why not? It's very simply: You've been given a sugar pill or other harmless pill (red pill) and what is potentially a poison/suicide pill (blue pill).

Under what circumstances (other than wishing to die) does it make ANY sense to take the suicide pill? Everyone has been given the gift of life via the red pill, why reject it? And if you do reject it, why would you expect anyone to think you're moral for doing so?

Why not?

Not everyone is sane, not everyone clicks the option they mean to click, not everyone is literate, and so on. It is, for all intents and purposes, guaranteed that "everyone can simply choose to live" is wrong.

Under what circumstances (other than wishing to die) does it make ANY sense to take the suicide pill?

I've mentioned many times that changing the frame changes what the correct answer is. That said, the answer is easy--you know that taking the pill may save others who have taken it.

Everyone has been given the gift of life via the red pill, why reject it?

Not everyone has.

Not everyone is sane, not everyone clicks the option they mean to click, not everyone is literate, and so on. It is, for all intents and purposes, guaranteed that "everyone can simply choose to live" is wrong.

The premise nowhere states that people will not have what is going on explained, or only explained via text, or have the choice made via mouse click. You are introducing new premises from thin air to aid your bad arguments.

In summary, this is a bad faith argument.

The premise is "everyone who responds to this poll". Misclicks are a given. It's a real poll; is your argument that nobody has misclicked on that real poll?

Given that the question states you have to choose between a red or a blue pill, presumably were this a scenario that was happening in real life with real life-or-death stakes, you would have to decide which option you were going to take by choosing one of the pills and swallowing it. There would be no misclicks in such a scenario.

Yeah that's true. Still, not everyone is sane, not everyone understands game theory, etc.

Why can't they? Here's a red pill, here's a blue pill, pick one. Everyone (no matter how many people are there) gets the same choice. Red pill for everyone if they choose to take it.

It's not a case of "if I take the red pill, that only leaves the blue pill for the next person, and taking the blue pill means they will die". If that were the choice, it would be selfish and immoral.

But this is "If I take the blue pill, unless enough other people take it, that means everyone dies but at least I get to say how good and moral and virtuous I am, how much better I am than the greedy, selfish people next door who took the red pill in the other experiment".

Why can't they?

Firstly, I said "can't or won't." But yes, I maintain that some people literally cannot choose the red pill. They will misclick or misread the question. Do you honestly disagree? I'm having a hard time understanding why everybody seems to be ignoring this possibility.

But this is "If I take the blue pill, unless enough other people take it, that means everyone dies but at least I get to say how good and moral and virtuous I am, how much better I am than the greedy, selfish people next door who took the red pill in the other experiment".

Very uncharitable. I think some people will choose blue, and therefore everyone should choose blue. It's pretty straightforward. There's no need to accuse me of virtue signaling when regular logic will suffice to explain my position.

"Not everyone can" than it is a different game.

I am talking about the game in the poll. Is your assertion that in that game, literally everybody is rational, will read the question correctly, and so on? I disagree, but even then there's the question of "will". It's a guarantee that some people will take the blue pill for one reason or another, so the "if everyone" premise is still false.

I think you're using a different definition of "can pick red" than the people you are talking to

Good thing I added "or will" then. Given that addition, does it matter what definition I'm using? My meaning was quite clear.

Whether people are rational or read the question correctly is very different from whether they can pick red. I agree that some people would pick blue, but if you are telling me that some people can't pick red, you have changed the game.

if you are telling me that some people can't pick red

Why waste my time with this hypothetical? I said "can or will". You can scroll up to my comment and read it right there.

That said, "some people can't pick red" isn't really changing the game at all. Some people will misclick. This is in line with the original rules of the poll.

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