site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   35553 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 19, 2022

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.

33
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I used to think it was entirely feasible, and I still suppose it could be along a number of different political issues, but everything in 2020 disabused me of the notion that it would be fine to be with someone with radically differing views. Starting with Covid, I don't really see how I could have reconciled the seething hatred that I felt (and feel) for the public health bureaucrats and lockdownists with a partner that wanted to stay home and stay safe. I don't think I could have tolerated being with someone that condoned BLMs riots as they tore down monuments to our city and smashed and looted our commercial district. I don't see how an anti-gun partner could tolerate my affinity for firearms - I'm going to have multiple guns, they're going to be in the house, and it's not really negotiable.

We can disagree about the proper role of central banking in the modern state, but we can't disagree about the things that are forced into the center of our lives. I suppose this is what's meant about the distinction between "politics" and "human rights", as I really do view freedom of movement, security of property, and the right to be armed as basic rights in a free society. For others, the things that are held in this fashion might be gay rights, abortion, or simply the reciprocal of what I said above (the "rights" to be free of sickness or not have guns around, at least in some framings).

Given the parameters of current year politics, I don't suppose I'd have much interest in dating someone with substantially different politics if I were single.

we can't disagree about the things that are forced into the center of our lives

In other words: politics!

I suppose this is what's meant about the distinction between "politics" and "human rights"

That's just a sleight of hand attempt on their part to move properly political questions into a sacred domain where their views will be beyond criticism. In exchange, they'll allow you to haggle over bureaucratic and administrative issues that no one actually cares about.

In other words: politics!

No, a subset of politics. The other parts of politics I might care about (certainly I have an opinion on tax amounts and foreign policy, for instance), but they're not personal in that sense.

In other words: politics!

Not really. I honestly don't care very much what the local property tax rate is all that much. I have opinions, but it's not going to ruin my life if I get stuck paying an extra couple grand for some pointless makework project.

That's just a sleight of hand attempt on their part to move properly political questions into a sacred domain where their views will be beyond criticism. In exchange, they'll allow you to haggle over bureaucratic and administrative issues that no one actually cares about.

Didn't I just say that I have a bunch of things that I don't consider negotiable?

Your reply seems pretty unrelated to what I wrote. I don't get 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