site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   26075 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.

I don’t think that’s true.

Kulakposters aside, it’s quite possible to feel strongly about something without concluding violence is justified.

Sure, but I don't think that's what's happening at all.

Not sure I follow.

The author observes that Hamas is evil, but should be separated from overall sympathy for Palestine. Does she express desire for more violence after the paywall?

Not when that something is deemed more important than the lives of your ennemies.

Intersectionals have the ideological machinery to justify death camps. I can walk you through the logic if you want but it's not hard to figure out.

What's missing to materialize the piles of skulls is just people who are ideologically committed enough and have enough power.

This isn't special either, lots of ideologies have this problem. But you can't ignore the eternal issue of fanaticism by closing your eyes.

Of course they can make such justifications. As you point out, so can just about anyone else. And yet, most people don’t.

Hlynka concludes that this is lack of spine. I find it more likely that, as with modern Christians, atheists, and postal workers, the desire to commit a genocide isn’t actually there. Much easier and more satisfying to grill.

I mean with conservative Christians we have examples of them choosing money over power more or less constantly and there was a recent top level post about how it legitimately reduces the bench for the Republicans to appoint from. SJW’s seem to have the generally opposite approach.

I’m not saying that they have a plan to put their opponents in camps, but I am saying that the evidence they don’t is more ‘come on now, there’d be some evidence of it if they did’ than actual countervailing tendencies.

Being a functional member of western society is the countervailing tendency.

I don’t think choosing academia or journalism for a career is sufficient evidence to overcome those defaults. All the same incentives which keep you and me from weaponizing the state still apply!

I think what's missing is that SJW's are not the sort of people who are very good at violence, and they themselves know this. Communist revolutions that were successful may have been frequently led by the SJW-equivalents of their society, but the tooth end was forged by alliance with people that are used to using violence and who are very much not typical SJWs, often quite literally violent criminals. Your blue haired Yale students know this and are terrified of a major escalation in the level of violence that's a temperature of the room, so to speak.

Now they're very, very bad at preventing or managing this, I won't dispute that, but a bunch of mentally-ill 20 year olds whose ideology is predicated on not having to listen to their elders can be expected on making mistakes like that.

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