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.

And I hate your kind of turnabout. You introduced the knowledge and ability to influence others into the scenario in order to “get” to your preferred outcome. If we can do that, then we can very easily influence the 3 year old to take the red candy. I have kids. It isn’t hard to convince the kid to take the red pill in this example. In fact, I think you’d be really irresponsible to get the kid to take the blue pill hoping you could get enough other people to pick blue. I know I would do everything in my power to get my kids to take red even if it meant going from sufficient blue to insufficient blue because I would not risk my kids dying.

It isn’t hard to convince the kid to take the red pill in this example.

Just tell them blue is spicy. Works on my kids.

You introduced the knowledge and ability to influence others into the scenario in order to “get” to your preferred outcome.

Huh?

The scenario provided was you can choose blue or red.

You then said “well the only way to guarantee a good outcome is by choosing blue.”

I pointed out that isn’t true. You then said well conditional on everyone knowing that a kid took the blue pill and cooperation then the only way to guarantee a good outcome is blue.

But that changes they hypo.

conditional on everyone knowing that a kid took the blue pill and cooperation

No, not conditional on cooperation. Whether people cooperate or not, the only way to guarantee a good outcome is blue. I never said conditional on cooperation.

And I didn't say "conditional on everyone knowing that a kid took blue" either. What I said was, given that it is going to happen. The implication is not that it has already happened or that everyone knows that it will happen, but that it's a reasonable conclusion for everyone to draw given the premise.

Besides that, my meaning was clear in the original comment. Nothing I said here:

Yeah, there would probably be at least one 3-year-old though. There's only one way to guarantee everyone remains safe.

implied anything about coordination.

Then try writing precisely. You voting blue absent cooperation doesn’t guarantee anything. It only guarantees the possibility of a good outcome if you condition good outcome as “everyone lives.”

If you are so sure some might fuck up the decision, then perhaps we could reframe good outcome to mean “the most lives saved.” In that case, neither option ex ante guarantees anything.

Then try writing precisely.

Low effort.

You voting blue absent cooperation doesn’t guarantee anything.

Great, never said it did.

If you are so sure

Are you not? Genuinely? Is your honest position that literally nobody will make a mistake or misunderstand the question? If it is, I'm impressed by your faith in humanity. If not, don't pretend this is some kind of abstract hypothetical my argument relies on. It's not. It's just reality.

perhaps we could reframe good outcome to mean “the most lives saved.” In that case, neither option ex ante guarantees anything.

Great, never said either did.

I think we are at an impasse.

If you quit trying to pick apart my words and actually engage with the meaning behind them we won't be. You've spent like 6 comments telling me my implication was misleading without sparing a single one to address what I've repeatedly told you the actual implication was. Feels like you are just looking for technicalities rather than trying to have a discussion. If you'd prefer to keep analyzing my wording though, when the meaning behind it has been made quite clear, I'm happy to leave it at an impasse.

Quite the contrary. I’m not trying to pick apart your words. I’m assuming you are using words in their ordinary English usage to convey meaning. But you seem to keep shifting what your words mean and therefore what you are saying isn’t obvious and it is hard to nail down exactly what you mean.

I’m arguing your premises are wrong and then you keep responding that I’m not understanding your implication but I’m looking at the words to understand your implication.

More comments

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