site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   25227 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 30, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

From your comment, and other comments you made, I determined that you did not believe the economy was doing poorly, so I asked about your personal circumstances. I couldn't post in the thread about perceptions of the economy when I asked you about your personal circumstances, because it didn't exist.

No, I have not expressed opinion about the state of the economy. That is what I mean when I said you are missing the point. I was merely commenting on the OP's [mis]use of his personal anecdote to argue that all positive data must be fake.

Was I wrong, do you think the economy is doing worse than the government says? Or do you, as I inferred, think the government is broadly accurate in its presentation?

Frankly, the question makes no sense. The govt doesn’t issue a "status of the economy" metric. Rather, it generates all sorts of data on aspects of the economy: data on unemployment, employment, inflation, poverty, gdp, housing starts, (at least two measures), and scores of others. Do I think that the data is basically accurate? Yes. But what the data implies about "how the economy is doing" depends on what one deems most important about the economy, as well as who you are. There is generally a tradeoff between unemployment and inflation, for example. And if you are an African-American teenager looking for work, the economy has never been particularly good. If your concern is inequality, things seem to be getting better recently.

You can talk down to me all you like, I am fully aware that personal circumstances shape perception of the economy, that is exactly why I asked you, as I explained earlier. I would have also been fine with you just saying "yes".

Again, you are missing the point, because my answer isn't "yes." My answer is obviously "it depends." And, I was not talking about personal perception of the economy; I was talking about personal judgment about the economy, which is not the same thing. "In my personal opinion, unemployment is actually higher than the official data says, because that is my personal opinion," is a very different claim than, "in my personal judgment, other factors outweigh the low unemployment rate; hence, I judge the overall state of the economy to be poor."

Jims the camera.

Do I think that the data is basically accurate? Yes.

Question answered. Are you now claiming that you didn't answer my question, and just phrased a non-answer in a way that looks identical to answering my question so you could sneer at me for misunderstanding? That's hilarious, I am totally stealing that in the future.

That wasn't the question you asked. The question you asked, which was "do you think the economy is doing worse than the government says", cannot be answered "yes" or "no", as I noted.

Let me ask you a question: If I said, "the govt says that the average male is 5'9". That data is bullshit, because I am 5'11", what would your response be? Or if I said, "the govt said that infant mortality went up last year. That data is bullshit, because I know 3 women who gave birth last year and their kids are perfectly healthy," what would your response be? Yet, when OP says, "The govt says inflation was 5% in the last 12 months. That data is bullshit, because several things I buy went up more than that", your response seems to be different. Why?

Was I wrong, do you think the economy is doing worse than the government says? Or do you, as I inferred, think the government is broadly accurate in its presentation?

It looks like the question I asked. Do you mean originally? You already answered that too.

Also I don't think I have responded to anyone who said something similar to "The govt says inflation was 5% in the last 12 months. That data is bullshit, because several things I buy went up more than that".

But if we ignore that the economy is more complicated than average heights, the major difference between what I'd say to that guy that I wouldn't to the others is something like "it's interesting you say that, because it seems like, even better than the usual partisan bullshit, how well you are doing currently is tied to how much you trust the government. That didn't used to be the case, in my experience it used to be the least well off who trusted the government more. Also it's weird how you trivialise the issue into 'several items have increased in price', the other people I've talked to who said something similar were scared because they felt it everywhere in their lives and many of them worried they had dipped below the poverty line. That is much more concerning than your thing, because desperate people do desperate things, so I'm going to go ask the motte about it."

Edit: glibness

More comments

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