site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28724 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 28, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't think you conclude anything about that which was never in contention in your mind in the first place. Nor do I believe you have ever been in a position to draw any conclusions about any of the topics you brought up given you say you don't engage much with the opposite view. It's very obviously hard to give anything which is presented as being true a fair critical shake.

This is incorrect. Although I may not "engage with the opposite view" to your satisfaction, I told you I've read books, I've watched documentaries and interviews (including with deniers).

Why ask me for my view when you just ignore it and lie about it? I can scroll up and see exactly what I wrote. I did not write a "disclaimer". You asked me about my point of view.

Observing that your words do not match your posting history is not a lie. It may be an incorrect conclusion, but I'm not lying about what you said, I'm saying what you say is not congruent with your behavior.

I specifically said the exact opposite of this. Why do you lie like this?

Again, no lie. Repeatedly saying "liar liar" because you don't like my conclusions is not the effective weapon you think it is.

You are supposed to engage with the argument. You didn't touch it. Even now you are doing exactly what I noted in my first post. Instead of looking at specific events and the evidence for those, you just rely on the whole thing existing as sum, and because the sum is true, no discrepancies of what makes up the sum can be changed. I am saying, don't look at the sum and assume it's holy, look at the parts.

I see. You want me to specifically debate the total number of Jews killed, how many were killed at Auschwitz, whether or not Nazi testimony is credible or whether it was extracted under torture, whether we can take Hitler and Goering's statements about wanting to remove all the Jews at face value, all those things? And if I don't play that game, debating each and every denier talking point, but say "I think the Holocaust happened," I am not "engaging with the argument"? The problem here is that there are many arguments here which you try to bundle as one argument. The argument is "Did the Holocaust happen?" The fine details might be relevant for someone genuinely interested in historical details, but I am saying "The weight of the evidence is that the Holocaust happened?" and you are saying "You are not engaging with the argument because somethingsomething overestimates at Auschwitz."

I mean, that's just confirmation of everything I said about your position.

Only if you are claiming I believe those things without evidence. Which you can assert, but again, my stating I believe things to be true is not a statement about how I came to that belief.

You don't care enough to evaluate the argument on its own merits and instead just throw everything under the same umbrella of 'bad'. There's no reasoning with someone like that since that person is not applying any reason to what's being said.

I am applying reasoning to what's being said. I'm not indulging in your rhetorical diversions.

This is incorrect. Although I may not "engage with the opposite view" to your satisfaction, I told you I've read books, I've watched documentaries and interviews (including with deniers).

I don't believe you based on your inability to entertain a simple argument made by me.

Observing that your words do not match your posting history is not a lie. It may be an incorrect conclusion, but I'm not lying about what you said, I'm saying what you say is not congruent with your behavior.

What I said is congruent with my behavior. But it's not congruent with what you need me to be to justify your actions, so you make stuff up.

Again, no lie. Repeatedly saying "liar liar" because you don't like my conclusions is not the effective weapon you think it is.

When your conclusions are the exact opposite of what I wrote, they can't be drawn from believing what I said. So why ask me to explain myself if you already have a view of me that you wont change?

I see. You want me to specifically debate the total number of Jews killed, how many were killed at Auschwitz, whether or not Nazi testimony is credible or whether it was extracted under torture, whether we can take Hitler and Goering's statements about wanting to remove all the Jews at face value, all those things?

No. I just wanted you to engage with what I said, given you replied to me.

And if I don't play that game, debating each and every denier talking point, but say "I think the Holocaust happened," I am not "engaging with the argument"?

If you bother replying to each and every denier argument, but never address any of the arguments specifically, but always just assert that you think the holocaust happened, and that holocaust denial is like low brow conspiracy theories, then your replies are not serious and instead just exemplifying the typical attitude I described in my first comment.

The problem here is that there are many arguments here which you try to bundle as one argument.

I did no such thing. I made a single argument relating to the holocaust in specific based on the problem of Dachau and eyewitness testimony.

The argument is "Did the Holocaust happen?" The fine details might be relevant for someone genuinely interested in historical details, but I am saying "The weight of the evidence is that the Holocaust happened?"

That's not the argument I made. But you would need that to be the case for your position to make any sense, so you just make this stuff up. I know you are saying that, in total, the holocaust happened. And I'm saying, I don't care what you believe in total. It's not relevant at all to the argument I made. I already mentioned that most people don't evaluate the evidence, but instead just accept the entire narrative and then reinforce their belief based on the idea that all of it must be true. You obviously do that, you obviously don't look at individual pieces of evidence, instead relying on the historical narrative as a narrative rather than an investigation into reality. I think that's very obviously uncritical and faulty reasoning but whatever.

Only if you are claiming I believe those things without evidence. Which you can assert, but again, my stating I believe things to be true is not a statement about how I came to that belief.

I find that your position is based on not engaging with specific pieces of evidence but instead on believing that the narrative is true. If you can point me to any part of your comments in this chain which doesn't do that, feel free. You can certainly say you believe in the thing because this and that, but in practice and word you have not done it here.

I am applying reasoning to what's being said. I'm not indulging in your rhetorical diversions.

After maintaining you have engaged with the argument, you now admit you have not.

Somehow, in your mind, insinuating that eyewitness testimony is not a great piece of evidence, supported by an instance where a lot of people in a concentration camp lied about intentional killings after being liberated, is just a rhetorical diversion. But maintaining that, actually, the argument was all along whether or not the entire holocaust happened is "the argument" is not a rhetorical diversion...

This looks like transparent projection. Your frame for this topic always needs to be the entire holocaust, the sum. Because your principle for belief is that it's already all true. If you can't point to it all being true to support your belief you have nothing.

After maintaining you have engaged with the argument, you now admit you have not.

This is typical of your argumentation, taking one statement in response to one thing ("I'm not indulging in your rhetorical diversions") and trying to misapply it ("Hah! See! You just admitted you don't even engage with my arguments!")

Basically, most of your posts, when I bother to respond to you, are a bunch of "Nuh uhs!" and "No yous" and projection. Hell, you even throw "projection" at me after engaging in massive projection - which is par for the course. You're verbose enough to write like you're making cold hard arguments, but it's all "Nuh uh" and "No you." Not impressive for someone who objects to his views being treated as low-status.

You haven't responded to the original contention made, instead you go through this pointless rigamarole of sneering and insinuations and then try to leverage those as a thing when it's just the longest form of ad hom possible.

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