site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   25197 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.

No one thinks slavery or the holocaust is more respectable because of Lee / Rommel.

Strong disagree. Isn’t that what the lost cause is all about? That they were in effect just lee-esque, decent, gentlemenlike men doing their duty. By extension, an institution defended by such men couldn’t be all that bad, could it?

It it is not the fact that they're on the other side of this giant controversy that bothers me about them, it is precisely the little things: the refusal to engage with opposing views, the censorship, the getting people fired from their jobs.

I endorse none of these things, even against nazis, so again complete irrelevancy.

You're the one claiming that sort of question is answerable, not me. The entire point of my framework is that the big questions are hard to answer, which is why doing the small, answerable, things right is so important, and why people like Lee deserve credit for it.

cop-out. This is a far more fundamental disagreement than the rest of the comment. Imo after that admission, you’ve forfeited the right to condemn anything the woke, or anyone else, do. Who knows, maybe hitler was right, it’s unanswerable. All you know is that you approve of Rommel’s good manners.

Strong disagree. Isn’t that what the lost cause is all about? That they were in effect just lee-esque, decent, gentlemenlike men doing their duty. By extension, an institution defended by such men couldn’t be all that bad, could it?

You'd have to talk to a lost-causer about that, I suppose.

I endorse none of these things, even against nazis, so again complete irrelevancy.

I never said you did so that's a deflection, and it's not irrelevant, it directly addresses your argument below.

cop-out.

Not only is it not a cop-out, it would be a glaring contradiction if I answered anything else. You know that, because you've made fun of me when you thought that's what I was doing.

This is a far more fundamental disagreement than the rest of the comment. Imo after that admission, you’ve forfeited the right to condemn anything the woke, or anyone else, do. Who knows, maybe hitler was right, it’s unanswerable. All you know is that you approve of Rommel’s good manners.

Yes, I agree this is the fundamental disagreement. No, I have not forfeited anything, as I outlined in the other argument that you dismissed as irrelevant, yes the woke might very well be right, and I might be wrong about the big questions, but it is the small things that make them evil.

It’s a common enough defense, that’s why I keep accusing FC of moral relativism, but I always have a hard time believing it is a genuine position, as opposed to a one-off tactic. Who would willingly confess to moral incompetence on all the big questions?

You guys are not behaving as if you just want people to be nice, and refuse to judge/abstain from voting on the big questions. No, you act like your side is entirely morally correct, and part of that case is that your opponents aren’t nice (well, sometimes you argue you shouldn’t be nice either because they started it, but whatever).

Who would willingly confess to moral incompetence on all the big questions?

Someone honest about limits of their knowledge.

You guys are not behaving as if you just want people to be nice, and refuse to judge/abstain from voting on the big questions.

At this point I think you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. Here, again:

I believe the conduct of our medical establishment regarding the transgender issue is the biggest medical scandals since lobotomies. But it is not the fact that they're on the other side of this giant controversy that bothers me about them, it is precisely the little things: the refusal to engage with opposing views, the censorship, the getting people fired from their jobs. I don't think I'm wrong on the issue, but it's not impossible, but if I conduct myself with some semblance of decency I can sleep easy knowing I did what I did with good intentions. This would ring rather hollow if I lowered myself to their level.

This does not boil down to "I just want people to be nice". Can you at least consciously try to paraphrase the above in your words, in a way that you think I'll recognize as my own views?

No, you act like your side is entirely morally correct, and part of that case is that your opponents aren’t nice

That's pretty reductive, but baby steps I suppose. Yes, I did say getting the small things right is more important that answering the grand moral questions, no?

(well, sometimes you argue you shouldn’t be nice either because they started it, but whatever).

Can you give an example?

Can you give an example?

Generally, the sub (and FC) is more partisan right-wing than I am on the topics you highlighted, free speech, not firing people, tolerance for differing opinions among friends.

How is that being not nice because they started it?

A common sentiment in the sub is “When we had power, we gave them free speech. Now that they have power, they deny it to us. We won’t make that mistake again.“

I feel like my worldview is close enough to FC's that I can answer for what he said (excluding the time period where he self-admittedly was in a dark place), but I'm not going to answer for "the sub".

Other than that I'm going to need something more specific. I think I had a conversation semi-recently where I defended conservative parents banning progressive books in schools, so depending on how you meant it you could fit that into "not making that mistake again", but in the same conversation I defended the right for progressives to do the same in their communities with conservative books, so I would disagree this is "not being nice because they started it".

Are you denying this is an official @FCfromSSC positionTM ? If anything, he's even more against free speech, ie, 'it was always a sham and could never have worked no matter the opponent'. Now in practice I believe he is less anti-free speech than the woke.

Nevertheless, this is a major problem for your argument. Because firstly people disagree on what the seemingly universal norm of ‘common sense decency’(small-h honor of lee and rommel) even is, and secondly, free speech to me is actually a ‘big question’, so the distinction you’re trying to make, and the world where we all just stick to your small standards, can’t exist.

More comments

This is devolving into petty squabbling, but I don't think 'wanting people to be nice' is a disparaging re-phrasing of your meaning. You admitted they are small things. The 'good manners' analogy is a more hostile paraphrase. And accusing me of cheka membership and a willingness to commit atrocities is on another level entirely. Anyway, I don't think it's for the speaker to define what can be inferred from his arguments.

Sorry, I think I ninja'd in an edit just before you posted.

I don't mind you being disparaging, it's probably unavoidable when two fundamentally different moral worldviews clash. The "good manners" thing actually works as an analogy, especially since we both recognize it as a hostile paraphrase, which is why I don't object to it. What I do mind is you being reductive. What's the point of elaborating on my worldview and giving examples, if you're just going to pretend I didn't say what I said?

Anyway, I don't think it's for the speaker to define what can be inferred from his arguments.

Yes and no. Sure, go ahead and extrapolate as much as you want from what I said, even if I might disagree with it, but do not dismiss what I said, at least without making it explicit (calling one of my arguments irrelevant was good in that regard, because I could respond to it).

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