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.

You can literally ONLY get the worst outcome (49.99999% death rate) if people start choosing blue.

Yeah? And you can literally only get the worst outcome if people start choosing red too, framed differently.

What if everyone discusses the matter beforehand and everyone agrees to select red. Now, there is no way to know that people will pick red, but is there any possible reason to pick blue once that agreement has been reached?

Nah, there's no way blue is happening at that point. I can see people doing it anyway, to not feel guilty about the deaths of those who will misclick, but it's not rational.

Yeah? And you can literally only get the worst outcome if people start choosing red too, framed differently.

Yep.

But red doesn't introduce any additional risk. Deaths occur IF AND ONLY IF blue is picked by someone(s). Blue is a necessary AND sufficient condition for deaths. Red is neither necessary nor sufficient, under the currently stated hypo.

The first person to pick blue is the one who makes it possible for death to occur at all.

So if I push this to it's logical extreme, I could probably argue that blue-pickers end up with blood (including their own) on their hands.

I don't argue that, because I don't even think I fully understand the blue's logic.

Me saying "I'm going to pick red, and you should too" is my warning as to what will happen if we play the game. I have zero possible benefit to lying.

Picking blue is choosing to accept risk of death where red does not imply such risk.

Deaths occur IF AND ONLY IF blue is picked by someone

This statement is false. The only if part is true but not the if part since its possible for blue to be picked and there to be no deaths.

Blue is a necessary AND sufficient condition for deaths

Again false. Blue is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for deaths as there are situations where blue is picked but there are no deaths

Red is neither necessary nor sufficient,

False one more time. Red is a necessary condition for deaths as if there are no reds there will be no deaths.

If you're going to use precise logical terminology in your post make sure to get it right otherwise you're just embarrassing yourself.

Red is a necessary condition for deaths as if there are no reds there will be no deaths.

Yeah, I should have specified that red is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause deaths conditional on there being no persons choosing blue.

Which is to say, the persons choosing blue are satisfying the condition which makes deaths a possibility.

Blue is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for deaths as there are situations where blue is picked but there are no deaths

Choosing blue is sufficient to cause deaths in every scenario in which they don't meet the threshold, if you think this makes the outcome different.

I'll point out that we're still left with the point that at least one person choosing blue is necessary to cause deaths. Prior to the decisions actually being made, I can state that picking red is not satisfying the conditions for death. It's not sufficient, and it's not necessary unless someone else is choosing blue.

Red is only necessary to cause deaths in those situations where that first person chooses blue.

To choose blue is to intentionally satisfy the precondition which makes deaths a possibility.

So someone choosing blue really has to justify why they're choosing to satisfy a condition which is allowing possible deaths.

I think there will always be people who choose blue for one reason or another, and I'd rather risk my life saving everyone than accept their deaths, provided I'm not just throwing away my life.

All this debate is definitely pushing me towards red though. Blue won in the original poll, but if outside of that corner of Twitter everyone picks red, red is obviously the better option.

think there will always be people who choose blue for one reason or another,

But this is an interesting thing to state, since people choosing blue presumably HAVE reasons for doing it. And those reasons might be salient as well.

For example, someone might pick blue because they WANT to die. Am I going to know that in advance? No. So I don't see why it should change my behavior.

"I want to save everyone" is comprehensible logic, but it requires us to believe there are people in need of saving.

Well here are a few possibilities:

  1. Someone doesn't get the memo that everyone is choosing red

  2. Someone is just stupid (or young, etc.) and chooses blue because they like the color

  3. Someone gets the game theory wrong and chooses blue

I find it highly unlikely everybody perfectly coordinates around red. 50% is much easier to coordinate than 100%, so I find blue the better option, even if most of the people who originally found their way there are idiots.

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