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.

Looking it up on Youtube I see a BBC documentary from 2002, an Al Jazeera documentary, a Jocko Willink Podcast discussion and some small high production value channels giving an animated breakdown.

And now compare it to response to the Iran hostage crisis, in which 50 people were held hostage, but eventually returned and not killed.

Obviously the media coverage is incomparable, but even that aside, Iran is still blockaded and starved. It is impossible to invest in Iran, it is impossible for Iranian companies to succeed globally.

And honestly, Iranians had incredibly good justification to be mad at Americans.

The ongoing sanctions on Iran might have something to do with their continued funding of terrorist groups.

Talk about apples and oranges. The Pueblo incident happened, and then it was over. The hostages were held for more than a year. Of course there is going to be vastly more coverage of the latter than to the former; eg, compare the coverage of "girl killed in fall" with "girl trapped in well," or "coal miners killed in mine accident" with "coal miners trapped in mine." Not to mention that the hostage crisis took place during an election year, while the incumbent was running for election.

Iran is still blockaded and starved.

  1. It is hardly starved, and 2) it has done some other shady stuff since then, no?

honestly, Iranians had incredibly good justification to be mad at Americans.

That is not really the point. The Iran incident involved an embassy. Americans had incredibly good justification to be mad at Japan after Pearl Harbor, but Japan's embassies and consulates were protected by US police after the attack.

That is not really the point. The Iran incident involved an embassy. Americans had incredibly good justification to be mad at Japan after Pearl Harbor, but Japan's embassies and consulates were protected by US police after the attack.

Was it the Iranian government that attacked the embassy? Because I'm pretty sure it was the Japanese government that attacked Peal Harbor.

Talk about apples and oranges.

No one is comparing Pearl Harbor to the embassy attack. The comparisons are between:

  1. Americans being upset at Pearl Harbor, and Iranians being upset at US policy re the Shah. Pearl Harbor was an act of the Japanese govt, and US policy the Shah the actions of the US govt.
  2. The response of the respective govts to threats to their enemy's embassy.

And, for the record, the Iranian govt ended up supporting the holding of the hostages and using them as bargaining chips.

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