site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   27151 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 20, 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.

What is there to understand?

What he said. So you can actually respond to it, for example.

Blaming boomers or brussels for immigration is simply wrong.

Yeah, I don't think he blamed the boomers. I also see nothing wrong with blaming Brussels.

If an anti-immigration voter then supports an anti-boomer or anti-brussels law, which fails to stop immigration, that’s not a failure of democracy.

Do you think that there's anything that could be classified as a failure of democracy?

Let's say the population is 60-40 opposed to immigration, but the governent still effectively allows immigration. That’s not proof that the people’s will doesn’t matter. It doesn’t mean you have to look elsewhere for the ultimate cause. Perhaps the 60 do not care as much.

With these sort of excuses a literal dictator can pretend to be carrying out the will of the people.

Perhaps the government thinks the people’s will on this issue is not reconcilable with the people’s will on other issues (like maintaining the retirement systems).

That's a very bad example. If two preferences come into conflict you can just start a public debate explaining the problem and asking people to chose the solution they want.

In any case, I guarantee that shrinking that 40 will be more effective in stopping immigration than blaming all the external boogeymen.

And how can you guarantee that? Any examples come to mind when the elites really wanted to do something, but were foiled by common sentiment, particularly long term? Also, they have much better means to shrink the opposing side.

But the paranoid right denies all agency to the people.

No we don't. This is another case where asking for clarification of things you don't understand would be better.

And so you get this situation where they fail to see a moral difference between israel (nay, an israeli, nay, a jew) asking for something, and stealing. Because america, as they see it, is a retarded giant whose lunchbox you can steal by just asking for it. In reality he’s not brainless and he can say no.

Well, I do agree the hatred against Israel is misplaced, and hatred against Jews is even worse. If your elites do not represent your interests, the blame lies squarely on them.

Do you think that there's anything that could be classified as a failure of democracy?

I always say the main purpose of democracy is to prevent a civil war, so that unpleasantness counts. You appear to have a more idealistic vision of democracy than me, which you then negate. To me, it’s about guaranteeing regular people a voice, not a supreme, telepathic link to the levers of power.

With these sort of excuses a literal dictator can pretend to be carrying out the will of the people.

They almost always do. And they often are.

I think we’re getting to the heart of the matter with this comparison, because I believe people are also partly responsible for a dictator’s actions (putin, chavez, hitler, hamas, etc). Do you disagree?

Any examples come to mind when the elites really wanted to do something, but were foiled by common sentiment, particularly long term?

They were trying to abolish the death penalty for at least seven decades in france before they did it.

Opposing the death penalty, [President Armand Fallières] systematically pardoned those sentenced to death during the first days of his mandate. It was also during his mandate, in 1908, that a bill aimed at the abolition of capital punishment was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies by the Keeper of the Seals Aristide Briand, who notably confronted the deputy nationalist Maurice Barrès, resolute supporter of the death penalty. The project was ultimately not voted on, with deputies and public opinion being all the more hostile to it as the very recent Soleilland affair (1907) was still remembered. It was only 73 years later that the death penalty was abolished in France, by the will of another President of the Republic (François Mitterrand) and another Minister of Justice (Robert Badinter).

I think they’re still chomping in the ol US of A.

If your elites do not represent your interests, the blame lies squarely on them.

Still seems to me like you assign zero agency to regular people, as long as the government fails to implement 100% of the best version of what they think on every topic.

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