site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   26925 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 25, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Marx also took the same research approach as Kaczynski, which was to sit in a room and imagine how other people felt. The fact that two basement dwellers came up with the same idea is not an endorsement of that idea.

I have a great deal of disdain for both sets of ideas, so I am perhaps not being maximally charitable. However, there are certain lines of argumentation where the only real counter to the ideas is to say "have you bothered asking anyone else?" This feels like a consistent problem among certain types of thinkers. They go off into isolation and use their own brain as a model for how everyone else might think and feel, and to a large extent they really nail how they themselves feel, and describe it in such a logical way that other people can imitate that line of reasoning and come to feel the same way.

They have not come upon a universal way of thinking about their topic, but they and their followers believe it to be universal. When they start trying to implement it and get predictable pushback they come up with all sorts of pet theories about how those who disagree with them have somehow been subverted by evil elements. These ideas can be very effective mind viruses. But their implementation in the real world will always leave a great deal to be desired, because there was never any strong connection between the author and the real world.

Should be noted that much of Marx-ISM was the handiwork of Friedrich Engels, who based his theories on his experiences of working-class life in Manchester, which he both observed personally to a great degree and also encountered through his working-class paramour Mary Burns.

I just randomly read TK’s manifesto this week and I thought of the alienation of labor. They both struck a chord with me that they are obviously correct about a problem in a society.

I also think they are wrong about the solution. That is, they’ve done half the work.

I'm not entirely convinced they are even correct about the problem.

We don't know for certain that people in hunter-gatherer societies also don't feel some sort of alienation with the labor they do. Our translations of current hunter-gatherer societies aren't great, we aren't even sure if they can count most of the time. And by definition they usually don't write anything down.

It reminds me more of the common complaint by marxists that the workers are forced to either work or starve. As if this is somehow a valid criticism of capitalism. Its a criticism of life and the universe in general. Sorry we can't just subsist on mana falling from heaven.

In my model there are more steps, and they've barely done any of the work:

  1. Identify the problem in a place / time / culture.
  2. Identify a place / time / culture where the problem does not happen.
  3. Understand how the noun in #2 avoids the problem.
  4. Use that understanding to create a solution.
  5. Test solution small scale.
  6. Test / fully implement large scale.
  7. If #5 or #6 fail, go back to #2 and double check everything.

We don't know for certain that people in hunter-gatherer societies also don't feel some sort of alienation with the labor they do.

IIRC when they tried explaining depression to hunter-gatherers, the hunter-gatherers straight-up thought the idea was absurd.

I don't think all the West's problems come from this, but this is very definitely a big part of depression.

Most people have that reaction to depression. Unless they themselves are depressed. And even then if you are the one weird person with an affliction you are better off hiding it.

Scott has an article (book review?) about mental illness and social contagion. He talks about the inuit a hunter gatherer society. I didn't get the sense you could ever get an inuit to admit to depression, they'd basically be signing up for a lifetime of being made fun of for it.

Well, I know I managed to somehow generate the same hypothesis as Kaczynski despite never actually getting around to reading his manifesto. Don't remember the details of how I came to the conclusion, though.

(Of course, physical activity and social contact per se are also relevant.)

I know he reviewed Crazy Like Us, but the Inuit weren't mentioned.

Found it: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-arctic-hysterias

I know I read that, but I must have forgotten. Not sure what went on there.

It reminds me more of the common complaint by marxists that the workers are forced to either work or starve.

Modern Marxists, but not historic ones. Lenin and Stalin were, for a couple of atheists, rather fond of "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

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