site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   27876 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 27, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

C) I've concluded that my ability at making commentary is better used for making an impact.

I don't know what is the nature of your work, but I'd encourage you to try and post it here, and if there are other like minded people here, to coordinate with them. Admittedly it will be a bit of slog, but I'd like to push this place from "where things get talked about" to "where things get done".

edit 2: I also mildly dislike the fact that standalone posts need approval, though I can see how that follows from the problem/design choice of easy anon registration.

God, yes! @ZorbaTHut, surely regulars who have been posting here for years can be trusted with not posting porn to the front page? You can always take our non-approved posting privileges away if we use them irresponsibly.

surely regulars who have been posting here for years can be trusted with not posting porn to the front page?

Don't tempt me, there are a lot of contrarians on here and if you push us with "yes surely you won't do naughty things", then that's a big incentive to go "I could if I liked! You're not the boss of me! I'm only agreeing to play nice so long as I find the terms equitable, don't take my consent for granted!"

Well, we have at least one name to preemptively remove from the "unapproved posting privileges" list.

I'd like to push this place from "where things get talked about" to "where things get done".

Ahem:

…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.

I have argued against this in the past and, to be honest, still think the whole idea futile. Of course I will still shame, build consensus, enforce conformity, make generalizations, vilify and recruit and worse, so long as my words are compelling, cast ideas and actors in any coherent value-laden light at all, and stochastically increase the likelihood of people coming to predictable conclusions. Such is my nature… but it's the same with anyone. So to get anywhere with this doctrine, you'd need to replace mottizens with lobotomized mealy-mouthed GPTs who will go on and on about subjectivity of everything under the Sun, or to proscribe talking of culture war.

But in light of this place outlasting other attempts, I concede the legitimacy of incumbent mods and therefore the word of their law. This place will never be more than a place for talking (and casual socialization), and if they remain successful in enforcing their vision, neither will it become something less.

That probably just means 'annoyingly recruiting for a pointless, antagonism-causing culture-war cause', as opposed to a more general meaning. I half-remember there being posts with calls to action to write to your representative about stuff like YIMBYism that weren't taken down because nobody cared.

Of course I will still shame,

Have you ever successfully shamed someone in this forum into changing their position?

I think I did get a few to move off it.

I am honestly surprised (and was honestly curious).

I agree on "recruiting for a cause", there are plenty of spaces online that want you to sign up for X and send this formletter to your congresscritter and donate to this fundraiser for cause Y here and so forth.

So I don't need or want to see "come sign up to my religion/political movement/cake baking start-up" activism on here.

But I do think people should be allowed to make arguments for "this is why I think my religion/political movement/cake baking start-up is good" and if others find those arguments persuasive, then it's up to them as to what the next step they take is.

Yeah, I know... still, maybe there's a compromise that can be made in what we mean by "Culture War"? I agree that people fundraising for GOP / Democrats, and coordinating their campaign efforts is a bad idea, and would ruin this place. OTOH, would the same apply to AI activism? You say this is the Culture War to come, but we don't hate each others' guts over disagreeing about it yet, I feel like we could pull off allowing various groups to organize around it here, without blowing the place up.

Possibly famous last words, I know, but worth a try?

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