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.

If you assume 20% of people will pick blue because they misunderstand the question then the moral calculus is very different.

Please, please explain to me what the type of person it is that has two buttons in front of them, one which grants them a 100% chance of survival, and the other which grants some uncertain chance of survival, and then, from pure ignorance (not making any complex moral calculation) picks the second button.

Because there are a lot of other things that this person's existence would imply.

I have a genuinely hard time believing that this person exists. And if there are enough of these people who can't comprehend the question, I'm DEFINITELY picking red because they might very well be making their choice at random, in aggregate.

Please, please explain to me what the type of person it is that has two buttons in front of them, one which grants them a 100% chance of survival, and the other which grants some uncertain chance of survival, and then, from pure ignorance (not making any complex moral calculation) picks the second button.

Since we're asking what happens if this person misreads the question, we can't assume that they understand that one of the buttons grants them a 100% chance of survival.

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/little-child-pushing-menu-button-260nw-1319473658.jpg

for one

...or anyone who accidentally presses the supposedly "bad one"

I am having a very hard time believing that there is actually anyone who is faced with two pills, one which is clearly explained to them "YOU WILL SURVIVE 100%" and intends to pick that one would accidentally screw it up at the last second.

And if we add in children who pick at random we have a new problem. IF we have a high enough number of these kids, it increases the uncertainty that enough people will end up picking blue.

Like, adding in people who can't comprehend the question posed makes it worse, not better.

For the absurd example, imagine that you play this game with 99 people who will pick at random (will literally flip a coin) and then there's you, who can make an informed choice.

You gonna bet your life on where on the probability curve they land and pick blue?

The only way to make blue more attractive to me with these added assumptions is to lower the threshhold. If blue 'wins' if 2% of people choose it, I might assume the risk.

But it just seems impossible under any fair interpretation of the hypo that you can be certain that enough people end up choosing blue to save the day, and red is inherently the certain, predictable choice because you don't HAVE to model millions of other strangers.

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