site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30629 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.

If the EV of red is higher than the EV of blue what is the moral theory blue is the moral choice?

Given that some people will choose blue, and you know nothing else about how people will decide, the EV of blue is higher.

If the EV of red is higher than the EV of blue what is the moral theory blue is the moral choice?

Does it matter? Deontology maybe. Really whatever your moral theory, the EV (according to your moral theory) will be paramount.

Given that some people will choose blue, and you know nothing else about how people will decide, the EV of blue is higher.

This is wrong. See the comment chain between me and /u/roystgnr for the actual math. The EV depends upon both the expected proportion of people who will pick blue and the variance of that estimate but there are definitely situations where you expect there to be a nonzero number of people picking blue and the EV of red is higher even in the altruistic case where you value your own life no higher than that of a random person

The EV depends upon both the expected proportion of people who will pick blue

Right, if you'll read my other comments in this chain, I make it clear that what I meant was "ignoring the expected proportion of people who choose one way or the other." I absolutely agree that most of the question boils down to your expectation about the proportions.

The EV of enough people picking blue is higher than red. It is far from obvious ex ante that the EV of blue is higher.

Right, that's why I said "knowing nothing else". Of course the high-EV option will generally be the one you think more people will choose.

Knowing nothing else doesn’t add anything to your argument. Your argument seems to be that there are enough blue pill takers that your vote makes a difference. I doubt it.

Knowing nothing else doesn’t add anything to your argument.

It was a qualifier to my main point. Naively, the EV of blue is higher. Telling me "yeah but we're not naïve" is not news to me. If it was then I wouldn't have added that qualifier at all.

Your argument seems to be that there are enough blue pill takers that your vote makes a difference.

That's not my argument, which is why I added the qualifier.

You keep making claims that don’t seem to reflect reality. Knowing nothing else (ie not knowing what other people pick) it is far from obvious that blue is maximizing EV.

You keep making claims that don’t seem to reflect reality.

Name one, please.

Knowing nothing else (ie not knowing what other people pick) it is far from obvious that blue is maximizing EV.

"Knowing nothing else" means "ignoring any of the considerations around what other people may choose, and thus considering them equally likely to choose one option as the other." "not knowing what other people pick" is only part of that. I LITERALLY mean "knowing nothing else" because the whole point was to ignore the rest of the question in order to make that one point.

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