site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   27236 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 11, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Polygamy, the natural mating equilibrium of humanity, will reassert itself.

Nah. I sooner see people pacifying themselves with porn, AI companions, and cats. People still having sex will probably stand by marriage. It's too good of a deal for all parties involved.

I feel like this would just result in polygamy reasserting itself. I would expect the people who pacify themselves with porn, AI companions, and cats to be majority - likely overwhelmingly - male, leaving a smaller number of males having sex than women (there's some indication that this is already happening). Marriage is indeed a good deal for all parties involved, but when you have such an imbalance of people still having sex, then polygamy is a pretty natural outcome. I'm sure the modal woman would prefer the currently-typical two-person marriage between one man and one woman, but when that option isn't available, why not choose being the 10th wife of a high status man than turning to AI companions and cats? I suppose part of it will have to do with how good AI companions get in the future; if the AI can actually manipulate the user's mind into genuinely believing that they're having a real relationship with a real flesh-and-blood-born-from-a-real-womb human who is high status, then all bets are off.

but when that option isn't available, why not choose being the 10th wife of a high status man than turning to AI companions and cats?

Presumably they'll program the AI companions in such a way that they won't leave you for a newer model.

That's the beauty of polygamy, he won't leave you for a newer model! The newer model just comes in and raises his status which means it also raises your status (while also lowering your status relatively due to having to share with one more woman; whether this is a net gain or loss depends a lot on the details).

But why would a guy support a harem aging wives when, if we're going for all-bets-are-off hedonism, he can just never marry anyone, or divorce and remarry? If nothing else it sounds dangerous. By the time I'd be adding wife no. 4, I'd be worried the other 3 will plot to give me a gentle push down a flight of stairs, so they can split the inheritance / life insurance.

Hm, good point. I suppose my thinking was that it's higher status to be a husband of a harem than to be a playboy or serial monogamist, but in the brave new world, that's certainly not a safe assumption.

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