site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   26076 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In war, you have to have “acceptable losses” because casualties are inevitable. Some level of risk must be acknowledge as irreducible. Practicality must reign.

Many political debates are based on the perfectionist premise that there are no “acceptable losses” for a given issue.

Diminishing returns, impossibilities, impracticalities, opportunity costs, compromise, tradeoffs; these are to be ignored or denied and you’re a Bad Person for bringing them up.

Either side of any debate can do this on any given issue, of course, but I think it’s currently more common on the left.

I encountered so many goodthinking midwits during Covid who really had never encountered the idea that nothing is a costless action. I had a hundred variations on this exchange between 2020-21.

"Is it worth opening the pubs/opening the schools/going into the office if it means people die?"

People died because of all of these things before Covid. If "someone dies as a result" is a reason not to allow something, we should immediately ban all motor vehicles.

"Well no, because even though a small number of people die in motor accidents every year, we still need motor vehicles for a functioning economy."

Congratulations, you now understand the concept of a "cost-benefit analysis". Please apply this concept to lockdowns, social distancing and so on.

Congratulations, you now understand the concept of a "cost-benefit analysis". Please apply this concept to lockdowns, social distancing and so on.

And they did, and they reached the conclusion that pubs, schools and offices don't need to be open because you can do all that via Zoom.

You can call that wrong, or motivated reasoning to justify their compliance, but in my recollection it wasn't as simple as pointing out that costs exist either way.

I completely reject the claim that remote schooling for young children is anything resembling an effective substitute for in-person schooling, so "you can do all that via Zoom" falls at the first hurdle. Likewise "you can do all that via Zoom" is cold comfort to the thousands of Irish people who lost their jobs because their job couldn't be done via Zoom, but wasn't considered an essential service.

in my recollection it wasn't as simple as pointing out that costs exist either way.

We must have been moving in radically different social circles. The scale of the midwittery on /r/ireland was something to behold. I lost count of how many times I had to patiently explain to people the concept of "excess death toll": a lot of people seemed genuinely surprised (even incredulous) when I told them that 85 people died in Ireland every single day in 2019. The median poster there was out of college (so unaffected by schooling being done remotely), capable of working remotely (so unaffected by economic shutdowns), introverted (so didn't really mind not being unable to go out to pubs or nightclubs, and was perfectly content sitting at home watching Netflix) and young (so unaffected by disruptions to the health service wrought by Covid). To the extent that these people were aware of the costs associated with lockdowns, it was limited to a vague recognition that spending time by yourself for months at a time can be rather trying (for which state of affairs, being socially awkward introverts, they had little sympathy). Most people there genuinely did not seem to appreciate the scale of the costs associated with lockdowns, and routinely glossed the anti-lockdown position as "imagine caring so much about drinking pints with your friends that you're willing to step over a hundred dead bodies to get there".

Can't find it but there was a SSC or LessWrong piece about how the optimal number of motoring deaths is not zero unless we decide it's worth banning motoring altogether.

I know this argument from Mitchell and Webb.

What an excellent sketch.

It's funny seeing this when viewed in the context of "Vision Zero" and similar urbanist movements.

“The optimum level of BadThing is not zero” is a common econ aphorism.

The optimal amount of [bad thing] is not zero.

Someone in the comments says it better, but the optimal amount of bad thing is 0. What is optimally non-zero is bad thing detection/prevention.

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