site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28426 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think it's an observable fact about the world that most high IQ people aren't very distrustful of the media. So it shouldn't be a sign of low intelligence that you like the NYT.

I don't think I can accept this, given that a lot of high IQ people I've known and engaged with are in fact incredibly distrustful of the media - this seems to me like a case of duelling anecdotes. I can believe that high IQ people in your cultural milieu read the NYT but no further, and that isn't enough to make your point convincing. Second, I don't necessarily think that IQ is a perfect measure of intelligence - it is one of the better ones that we have and g is clearly important in a lot of ways, but that doesn't make it the be-all and end-all. I am honestly not quite certain about my own definition of intelligence given how complicated a problem that is, but I think continuing to read a paper like the NYT and giving them credence/respect is, given their track record, stupid.

I think the initial statement mixes together various different senses in which someone can be wrong in a way that creates a misleading sense that the people you disagree with do so because they're dumber.

I don't actually disagree, save for the misleading part, because I think that consuming information from the NYT to the point that you read it cover-to-cover every day means that you are, in effect, dumber. If you have an IQ of 200 but that IQ only interacts with reality through a lens or paradigm that feeds you incorrect information, I feel like there's a real sense in which you're stupider than someone with an IQ of 135 who has a more accurate view of the world. Obviously IQ plays a part in how you pick up that worldview and this problem becomes insanely complicated, but fully explicating that is the sort of work I'd need to be paid to do - it would be a significant research project after all.

That'd be nice, because the right would win more quickly, but they aren't.

I don't care about the right winning. I don't think that the left/right lens produces useful information about politics anymore and my own positions on various issues fall on all sides of that spectrum.

It does make one more dangerous, more able to mess things up at a large scale, but I think the good more than compensates for the bad, it enables you to do more of and more deeply everything interesting and worthwhile.

It CAN. It can also make you more capable of messing things up at a smaller, more personal scale as well. At the same time, it means you're better at justifying your actions, even mistaken ones. This isn't even getting into the developmental trade-offs that come with it either.

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