site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30069 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 13, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

With an attitude like that, societies could never change and correct their mistakes, comrade. Anyway, I’m suspicious of the strategic advice coming from political opponents. Let's just debate the ideas and let me worry about what people will accept.

No one said that has to be the only strategy. There can be short-term and long-term strategies (and if you mean that society should correct its "mistakes" of valuing freedom of religion and freedom from insidious discrimination, that is long-term indeed).

Finally, I don't know what you hope to gain by addressing me as "comrade."

It's just a joke based on the fact that you defended a conservative position while our overall alignments (on the progressive axis) are the opposite, I meant no insult, I did not mean to imply that you are a communist. My true objection, of course, is not that I am a revolutionary who wants to change the core values of the people in an afternoon, but that such consequentialist considerations ("what people will accept") should not intrude upon our search for the truth("let's just debate the ideas").

I actually don't think I was defending a conservative position at all. I, and I believe OP, was commenting on how to effectively pursue political goals. That has nothing to do with right or left; understanding what motivates your opponents is sound strategy regardless of your political orientation.

I think you would recognize it as conservative if it was applied to trans issues. Or perhaps slavery. As to the core values of the people on that particular point, 41 percent of democrats (versus 46 against) supported the muslim ban (source).

I told you what I think motivates progressives here: primarily status concerns and ideological gate-keeping ( as in, their ideology does not allow them to leave the flock on just one issue, all “enemy ideas” are “linked” ). Although the ‘correct-orthodox’ beliefs are justified further down, as you say, by their understanding of fairness.

I think you would recognize it as conservative if it was applied to trans issues

I don’t understand. An effective strategy is an effective strategy, regardless of whether the goal is conservative or liberal or something else.

41 percent of democrats (versus 46 against) supported the muslim ban (source).

Except, it wasn't a Muslim ban. It was a ban (actually, a partial ban) on a handful of countries associated with terrorism.

An effective strategy is an effective strategy, regardless of whether the goal is conservative or liberal or something else.

Technically yes, but the strategy 'violent overthrow of the government' is rarely claimed to further conservative goals in practice. Conservatives are unusually fond of strategies that don't do that, oppose it, even. Your argument was one of those. Hence, conservative strategy.

It was a ban (actually, a partial ban) on a handful of countries associated with terrorism.

Since when is 'coming from a country associated with terrorism' a valid reason to insidiously discriminate within a progressive framework?

Hence, conservative strategy.

I think you are conflating two different meanings of "conservative." One can employ conservative, incremental strategies in pursuit of radical goals.

Since when is 'coming from a country associated with terrorism' a valid reason to insidiously discriminate within a progressive framework?

  1. OP is talking about an anti-Muslim proposal, not an anti-terrorist proposal.
  2. Who says progressives supported the travel ban?

Edit: And see this poll from around the same time :

Eight-right percent of Americans - and 87 percent of American Christians - think the government should treat all potential immigrants the same, regardless of religion.

And

In principle, three in four Americans would oppose a ban on all Muslims from entering the U.S. – including large majorities of Democrats (92 percent) and independents (75 percent), and a slight majority of Republicans (55 percent).

That is despite 45 pct supporting the specific ban in question.

OP is talking about an anti-Muslim proposal, not an anti-terrorist proposal.

Pure technicality. Trump's ban didn't ban literal practicing terrorists. If I just couch what is effectively a muslim ban in terms of an 'anti-terrorist proposal', that makes it ok?

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