site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30068 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 21, 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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is basically the bike cuck comic except replace “bike” with “election” and “happiness” with “legitimacy”.

I’ll take an actually legitimate election over deep state vs. controlled opposition volume 24, thanks.

The optimal level of bike theft isn't zero, given an environment with bike thieves. Legitimacy is also a continuum, as well...a "candidate" that wins in a 99% landslide isn't exactly stealing an election, he's robbing it at gunpoint along with a bunch of voting booths, election officials, and the whole damn building. The threat of civil unrest or worse - much worse - keeps a lot of politicians "honest". We'd both prefer an actually legit election. But like the bike dude: are we willing to get in a gunfight with the thief over it?

The optimal level of bike theft isn't zero, given an environment with bike thieves.

Explain yourself.

Totally eliminating risk generally creates enormous costs that outweigh whatever risk you want to prevent.

The cost of enforcing zero bike theft is generally higher than allowing a few thefts.

The cost of enforcing zero bike theft is generally higher than allowing a few thefts.

I believe the phrase is "millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute".

I wouldn't go quite that far; there are probably circumstances under which we have to tolerate bike theft because the cost of preventing it is too great. But the tipping point is not "where the cost of preventing it exceeds the cost from losing the bikes".

I believe the phrase is "millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute".

And the reason for that, of course, is incentives. You pay off one bunch of Libyans, and sooner rather than later every two-bit bunch of pirates who can slap together a boat is going to demanding tribute, and the first bunch will be increasing their demands. It's not quite as simple as never paying the Dane, but you should definitely be biased against it.

And so "given an environment with bike thieves" is an error. The environment will contain more or fewer bike thieves depending on your efforts at enforcement.

Given that time I had my purse robbed by some little bitch of a thief in a shopping centre, leaving me literally penniless with no way home, I am quite happy to spend more on enforcing zero X theft than just 'allowing' a few harmless 'victimless' thefts.

If Bike Cuck Guy is so happy about being robbed, let the happy thieves take everything he owns down to his last penny, then see how content he is about the level of happiness in the world being greater than the loss. Only someone who can comfortably afford to lose a certain amount of money or goods, which means little to no ill-effect on himself, would express such an attitude.

Maybe St. Francis of Assisi would rejoice in a thief taking the few pence he possessed as being in greater need than he, but those of us who can't afford to laugh off a loss of something that cost a couple of hundred quid (depending on the price of the bike) aren't so saintly and are more vengeful.

Only someone who can comfortably afford to lose a certain amount of money or goods, which means little to no ill-effect on himself, would express such an attitude.

Fair enough, but even in the Wild West - where horse thieves were hanged when caught - petty theft was treated differently. During the California Gold Rush, petty thieves were flogged and released.

I don't think I've got the stomach to shoot someone over a bike; I might feel differently if that bike was what stood between me and homelessness...if it was as important to me as a horse was for a cowboy in the Old West. And law enforcement wouldn't throw me in prison for it.

Given that time I had my purse robbed by some little bitch of a thief in a shopping centre, leaving me literally penniless with no way home, I am quite happy to spend more on enforcing zero X theft than just 'allowing' a few harmless 'victimless' thefts.

Are you engaging with what "zero X theft" actually means, though? That's not "vanishingly small number of X thefts," which could possibly be accomplished by scaling up the current enforcement mechanisms by a few factors or a few orders of magnitude. That's zero theft of X, which for purses or bikes would likely mean something like having full coverage surveillance of all public areas (and most private areas) at all times, and furthermore those policemen or security guards would also need full surveillance to prevent corruption, bribery, etc. Of course those people also need surveillance to prevent corruption as well and so on and so forth. On top of all the regular training needed. We'd probably need to commit a substantial majority of our population just to law enforcement. Even after all that, I'm not sure that zero X theft for something like purses or bikes is a likely outcome. It's really difficult to build a truly perfect system with literally zero failures in anything but the most trivial circumstances, and society-wide theft is very far from trivial.

If we call for anything short of that (and possibly even if we do call for all that I described above), that means we are fully admitting that we are completely okay with and accepting of some nonzero level of X theft in our society, even if each and every individual occurrence of such theft is an injustice that we seek to prevent.

I'm sufficiently pissed-off and vengeful that fuck yeah, I'd take that. We're not quite as advanced as the UK for the surveillance society, but full coverage would have helped catch the pickpocket instead of the security guard who stood around scratching his head and who did nothing to help me. Granted, by then she probably had passed it on to someone else, but at least even having better CCTV footage than existed would have let me make a complaint to the cops.

We've had a recent example of what attempts at "zero X" look like with zero covid. Notably, it looks like that people who aim for zero crime and people who aim for zero covid are different sets of people.

When we increase cop power to the extent that they can enforce 0 purse thefts, are you so certain that this power won't be used to enforce other things you might disagree with?

It's already being used to enforce shit I don't agree with, why not get some benefit out of it?

Fair.

A vote for Trump is a vote for such a gunfight. I would not personally shoot the thief stealing my bike only because I would get lawfared to death over it (look at Trump, the analogy gets even better). Though I personally have no issue with the thief being killed or the election fraud enablers being thrown in jail/removed from their posts/pilloried in the town square.

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