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.

But once you are already in a physical fight the chance of the fight occuring is no longer a factor. C'mon.

Which is why I asked if you're going to concede the argument, if I show you that women tend to be harmed less then men once in an altercation, or if you're going to move the goalposts again.

ONCE you are in a fight was the whole point of that example at which point the fact that a woman may be less likely to get into said fight in the first place is already accounted for

Actually, it's not. You're dismissing the factor of the chances to get into the fight, in order to show that they're more likely to get harmed. You said yourself that the likelyhod of harm must take both into accout. The problem is that you're not even bothering to show they're more likely to get hurt, once in a fight. For your argument to hold they would have to be injured a lot more than men, once in a fight, in order to compensate for the lower likelihood of the fight occurring.

And if you are going to deny simple biological differences then clearly there is not much more to talk about

Nope, everything I said us already after granting the biological differences.

You don't seem to be actually making arguments against what I am claiming

That's not true, I am directly addressing your claims.

Well then let's start at the base and work up to find the issue. Would you agree that men are (on average) stronger and more physically aggressive and therefore more likely to be able to inflict harm on a woman in a physical altercation, should they want to?

I'd actually like you to stop avoiding the question of which evidence is going to make you concede the argument, rather than shifting the goalposts, first.

But sure "more likely to be able... should they want to". If a man is absolutely determined to do damage, he will have an easier time doing so. That is miles away from "more likely to hurt a woman, once in a fight", and in another solar system from "(conditional on your original assumptions), doxxing is more likely to result in harm to a woman".

I'd actually like you to stop avoiding the question of which evidence is going to make you concede the argument, rather than shifting the goalposts, first.

I can't answer that question. Because I don't know what evidence will cause me to change my opinion until I see the evidence. That's not how people work.If you have evidence of whatever your argument is (which I am still unclear on) then simply provide it. Stop trying to create gotchas or whatever. That's why I am trying to work out where our disagreement is, because you haven't actually said at what step you think I am wrong.

Ok, so the next step up is I think should they want to. So would you contend that someone who tracked someone down physically after they were doxxed is less likely to want to hurt a woman than a man then? And then I suppose the next step up after that (just because this will take all day otherwise!) is if you think it is more likely that someone will attempt to physically find a woman who has been doxxed or a man?

I can't answer that question. Because I don't know what evidence will cause me to change my opinion until I see the evidence. That's not how people work.

You should be able to tell what logical conditions need to apply for your argument to be true, and concede the argument was false if one of them is not fulfilled, otherwise we are not having an honest conversation.

So would you contend that someone who tracked someone down physically after they were doxxed is less likely to want to hurt a woman than a man then? And then I suppose the next step up after that (just because this will take all day otherwise!) is if you think it is more likely that someone will attempt to physically find a woman who has been doxxed or a man?

Yes, yes, yes. I'm pretty sure generally men are less likely to inflict harm on women, than on other men.

Yes, yes, yes. I'm pretty sure generally men are less likely to inflict harm on women, than on other men.

This is probably the crux of our disagreement then. I would agree that when it comes to violence generally you are correct. But the kind of situation where a stranger is sought out is far outside the normal levels of impulsive or standard criminal violence that is most male on male violence. But my experience working with the police in and around stalkers, is that while both men and women perform tracking style behaviours at roughly equal numbers, the kinds of actions they then carry out are very different (due to gendered differences) and male stalkers who track down a female are more likely to escalate to physical (and sexual) violence with the victim. There is a gendered difference in how and why men and women track down strangers and the kind of things they do once in that position. Though most in my experience watch rather than interact which is a second reason why the absolute risk of doxxing is low. This plus the fact that women are physically weaker and thus at greater risk once it comes to an altercation (where the man wants to harm them) is where my position comes from, all else being equal.

In other words if I have a choice of whether someone is going to fixate on me or my wife, I'd rather it were me, as I stand a much better chance of fighting off an assailant if it comes to that (Z), and I think it's much less likely that they would physically come to find me (Y), and if they did the chances of them trying to attempt a physical confrontation of any kind would be lower (X). For X I think that if they did engage in a physical confrontation (whether with me or my wife) given the other steps they have already passed through they are likely to be willing to do harm, but as I know that is a bone of contention for you, I will add that as (W) willingness to try to do harm. And then likelihood that someone online would fixate on me vs my wife in the first place (assuming we both got doxxed) (V).

So to try and work in your terms (though I maintain this is not how people think generally), if you demonstrated that, risk VWXYZ for me is lower than VWXYZ for my wife. (or for any generic male and female), then I should revise my opinion. Currently I would say that I think the woman would be slightly more likely to be targeted in this scenario, that the willingness to do harm may be roughly equal, likelihood of a physical confrontation skews to the woman, likelihood of someone physically travelling to find skews to the woman slightly, and the inability to fight off as effectively skews to the woman very significantly.

In other words while in general it may be true that men are less likely to do violence to a woman, once you are dealing with someone who has fixated enough on a stranger to track them down after being doxxed, travelled to them, then initiated a physical meeting, then got into a physical struggle, I think has demonstrated a unusual set of proclivities which makes them much more likely than normal to do violence to their target no matter who they might be. They aren't independent unrelated variables.

I would agree that when it comes to violence generally you are correct. But the kind of situation where a stranger is sought out is far outside the normal levels of impulsive or standard criminal violence that is most male on male violence.

The problem here is that you're alternating between being strategically generic, and strategically specific. You're saying that we shouldn't apply statistics from generic criminal violence to the harm that can result from doxxing, because that is different type of scenario, but at the same time you're saying we should apply statistics from stalking, although it's far from clear to me that showing up to someone because an influence you followed doxxed them is the same type of behavior as stalking typically dealt with by the police.

So to try and work in your terms (though I maintain this is not how people think generally), if you demonstrated that, risk VWXYZ for me is lower than VWXYZ for my wife.

But this already concedes your original statement is false. Originally you said:

Hmm, if we take as granted that doxxing increases the risk of some physical altercation taking place (even if by some tiny percent) and if we take as granted that the average woman is physically weaker than the average man, then I think it is probably true that doxxing poses more of a physical risk to women than men.

That's not VWXYZ, that's Z and something you completely dropped here - "if we take as granted that doxxing increases the risk of some physical altercation taking place", let's call it A. Z is not controversial, A is at least plausible, so I can grant it. But in the last comment you replaced it with VW. They're not the same thing because A is a statement about an increase from a baseline, while VW are statement about the resulting level of risk, which we then compare between men and women. Doxxing can result in A with VW(men) > VW(women) still being true. XY was not part of your original argument at all, and I do not grant them.

All I'm saying is:

  • AZ != VWXYZ
  • VWXY requires backing evidence, either from you or the NYT.

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