site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30136 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.

This is among the things that governments can get away with under the ridiculous excuse that this is a licensing issue and not a criminal one. This is directly downstream from every liberty-infringing restriction designed to punish drinking and driving, and comes from exactly the same place and for exactly the same reason. The same reason why refusing to take a breathalyzer in the field can get your license suspended despite not being found guilty of anything is why they think they can use the same cudgel to beat another group of people.

I had not heard of this rule, but I could hardly have asked for a better example of why you never let the government start sliding down the slippery slope. DUI laws are among some of the worst offenders.

ridiculous excuse

How is this a 'ridiculous' excuse? The road network as it is today only exists thanks to the government, why should it then not be able to regulate who can drive, and how they can do it, on the roads they are largely responsible for? I for one am glad to be free (or freer than I otherwise would be) from a drunkard killing me in his car, all so that a few cranks can delude themselves about how much liberty they have.

Because freedom of travel is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and basic humanity, and that the government has used its monopoly over violence to force private roads out of business doesn't change that.

I think it's close to a ridiculous excuse because the ability to drive has such a major impact on people's lives, and so so much infrastructure for the past century has been based on the assumption that you have a car. It's really hard to live without a car if you're not in New York City or certain other urban areas on that scale. I think it could easily destroy someone's life if they rely on their car for getting to work (and for some jobs for work directly), for groceries, for dropping off and picking up kids, for seeing relatives, for going to doctor appointments, for taking care of friends and family, for getting to hobbies, etc, and suddenly tomorrow they're told that they can no longer do this for any reason other than them posing a legitimately imminent threat in some way.

Interesting euro/American contrast here - fewer Euros would tolerate living in a place where you can only "exist" (ie do normal stuff like go to work, go to school, see friends, buy groceries, etc) with the help on a car, so this dilemma doesn't arise as much over here.

That is, I fully accept that freedom of travel should be a fundamental right, but also agree that driving a car is not - it's something you do on the state's sufferance.

These two principles don't often conflict in Europe, but it's a damn hard dilemma. Probably it's easier to solve with AI driving than by rebuilding most of your cities

These two principles don't often conflict in Europe, but it's a damn hard dilemma. Probably it's easier to solve with AI driving than by rebuilding most of your cities

Easiest way to solve it would be to make America greater than ever before, with population size and density that would make car heavy suburban lifestyle impossible.

edit: link

The road network as it is today only exists thanks to the government, why should it then not be able to regulate who can drive

Probably because this is not one of the limited powers allotted to them, and therefore none of their business.

I for one am glad to be free (or freer than I otherwise would be) from a drunkard killing me in his car

Yeah, and you're free to only buy cars that spy on you and can shut themselves down if they don't like what you're doing.

I don't care about freedom from drunkards, I care about freedom from the most powerful organization in the history of the world. The two are not the same and conflating them is deliberately missing the point.

Probably because this is not one of the limited powers allotted to them, and therefore none of their business.

We are talking about a state government, not the federal government.

The road network exists because the government collected taxes to build it. In the absence of taxes you could have (collectively) gotten roads built on your own without the excuse for government meddling.

By your reasoning if the government shut down all grocery stores and instead taxed us more to buy food, which it then distributed, it would be okay for the government to put arbitrary restrictions on what food people are allowed to eat since after all you're getting the food thanks to them. It's thanks to taxpayers, not thanks to the government.

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