site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28473 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.

This is additional information that one had to look up about the modder...

Yes, because we were getting to the point that I had to actually bring that stuff up.

You are correct, however, that we are speaking on a separate argument, one about whether there is any coherent meaning to be found in one's modding choices.

And talking about "context" doesn't actually add anything to this, because "context" isn't the issue; the modding choices didn't tell us anything about whether the modder was racist, with or without the additional details that added context - it was those additional details that told us whether the modder was racist.

????????

What do you think context even means if not the details for why something is or is not racist?

Well, one reason is that when people are talking about "progressives," they're usually talking about a set of people who voluntarily signed up for a particular sociopolitical cause.

There are a great many people who adopt their views through osmosis. For example, streamer Hasan claims that he is a socialist, but watch his streams and you'll realize how fundamentally unserious he is about making socialism happen. According to you, I am supposed to take his words seriously instead of considering anything about revealed beliefs/preferences.

I also personally find it hard to argue against such psychoanalysis of progressives when they perfectly match the mentality that I myself lived through as a progressive...It's that when I see someone who clearly understands my own thinking so well despite never having met me, much less been within my mind, it gives me pause and makes me want to listen rather than argue.

If you think that your mentality may have just been your own, then the next step would be to ask how many progressives shared your mentality. That's the relevant question, not whether you personally experienced what is being described.

And this step, if one is intellectually honest, is to admit that we can't assign meaningfully accurate probabilities to these reasons that aren't just dominated by our own biases.

What a black-pilled take, to forgo the opportunity to ever exercise your mind and produce accurate statistics/percentages because you would be biased!

I don't believe you. I don't believe for a moment that you don't trust the percentages your mind constructs in a great deal of other instances. This is a perfect example of an isolate demand for rigor.

I think there is no more value to be gained from continuing this discussion. So we shall, as you say, agree to disagree.

I think there is no more value to be gained from continuing this discussion. So we shall, as you say, agree to disagree.

I'm impressed by the balls you have to repeatedly put false words in my mouth and to project your own insecurities onto me and then end with an "agree to disagree." It's legit admirable.

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