site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   25088 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 16, 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.

🏆🏆🏆

This works in large part because you wouldn't have asked us to guess if it had been the other way around.

Yeah I would've. I love misdirection and anti-humour as much as I love making fun of ugly people.

More effort, less obnoxious jeering and dunking.

Standard physiognomy win, nice

I'm not going to confidential state that bioleninism is true. But it might be.

Don't read too much into it. It was 50/50 that the better person would have been more attractive and if it had gone the other direction he just wouldnt have brought it up

More than that, if you google the "nice one," the second picture you find of her is much less attractive. OP chose his photos intentionally. Which, hey, fun trick.

/images/16976646449606984.webp

Is this really a dunk? Both photos still substantially more attractive than the other woman, even if she's less presented in the one you've just linked.

No accounting for taste I guess. Both land so far left of the swipe line for me that the comparison is irrelevant, and I typically have pretty loose standards.

Not saying she's some vision of loveliness but like nice pic was her as a 7.5, less-nice pic was her as a 6 and the other woman a 3 to me

Interesting. No accounting for taste I guess.

Yeah, seriously, 'physiognomy' as it's used on the internet is mostly socially distributed selection bias. Every time I've tried to get an unbiased independent sample of two groups where one is claimed to be more attractive because they're morally better, there wasn't a difference. Whether that's 'historical reactionaries (claimed to be more attractive)', 'left-wing extremists (claimed to be less attractive)', etc.

There's a modest association between physical attractiveness and intelligence (poor health reduces both), and I think a bunch of subtler relationships between various ways one looks and various clusters of human behavior, but ~ all of the e-right claims about it in the current year are just comically false.

I agree that you can't correlate inherent attractiveness to politics, but in this case, the author has that lesbian/feminist look and alexis the traditionnally feminine. One of them is trying to appeal to men visually and the other isn't (if not repel them). Maybe the "male gaze" doesn't even enter into it, they are just straightforwardly signaling their politics through their looks. In any case, given the details, it's not 50/50 at all as to who is likely to be who.

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