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.

But infertile opposite-sex couples could always get married...?

That the law was over broad for its purpose is not a killer argument. Many laws are over broad for their intended purpose. Also for much of history this wouldn't be a worthwhile inquiry for the state.

Such as...?

Disease control. Encouraging procreative coupling.

I don't particularly care what the interests of the state are, in terms of whether or not I'm for or against something. Hell, in plenty of situations, like privacy or free speech, the interests of the collective state and that of its individual citizens are diametrically opposed. So much the worse for the state, is/ought distinction etc.

That being said, the Spartan state encouraged homosexuality as a male bonding exercise, so it's hardly unheard of.

What it is, is irrelevant, from the perspective of whether citizens should tolerate it.

I don't particularly care what the interests of the state are, in terms of whether or not I'm for or against something.

Same. I oppose homosexuality for my own private reasons which are non-religious, but are mildly aligned with the state's interests.

Hell, in plenty of situations, like privacy or free speech, the interests of the collective state and that of its individual citizens are diametrically opposed. So much the worse for the state, is/ought distinction etc.

You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

That being said, the Spartan state encouraged homosexuality as a male bonding exercise, so it's hardly unheard of

There is some evidence they encouraged some forms of M-M sodomy, but not obligate homosexuality as encouraged by the majority of gay advocacy groups in the current day, and certainly it would be a practice entirely orthogonal to a marriage between men, which would run afoul of even the Spartans IMO twisted position.

What it is, is irrelevant, from the perspective of whether citizens should tolerate it.

Well, we are talking about the state issuing marriage licenses. This sort of comment is like saying, "whether the secretary of state refuses to give blind people driving licenses is irrelevant to whether citizens should support blind people driving!"

Well, we are talking about the state issuing marriage licenses. This sort of comment is like saying, "whether the secretary of state refuses to give blind people driving licenses is irrelevant to whether citizens should support blind people driving!"

Well the crux of the issue is whether the existence of gay marriage is causing "harm" to the majority of the other citizens. That's certainly false for the strict standard of harm my libertarian side espouses.

If they aren't bussy-blasting you, hypothetical (and the odd real ones around here) person who disapproves, suck it up. Err.. Not quite that way, but I applaud your spirit!

Well the crux of the issue is whether the existence of gay marriage is causing "harm" to the majority of the other citizens.

No? The Crux of the question is whether the state is interested in gay relationships because they cause some sort of complication that we think we need to deal with. With heterosexual pairings, we think we need to deal with responsibility for those children. That is pretty much the state interest. Whether there is some harm is not the point. The point is having standard rules for standard things.

I don't particularly care what the interests of the state are, in terms of whether or not I'm for or against something.

Sure. The argument was about "why should the state care?"

It's consistent to say that the state should advance one set of values that serves their interests, while private citizens are free to hold other values that have nothing to do with state interests. E.g. the state has an interest in having a strong military and may choose to valorize soldiers with medals and memorials and holidays. Meanwhile private citizens may choose to adopt different values that don't glamorize dying in war.

I gave you an example of a state advancing homosexuality for what can be described as the sake of the state.

Idk about you, but I expect, being the citizen of a representative democracy, and likely to become a citizen of another one, that the state does its level best to align itself with the desires of the majority of its citizenry.

To be clear, I don't actually agree with the argument. "The state" in my view is barely a coherent concept as an actor - it's more a vehicle that various groups fight to control than a thing with its own desires (and to the extent it has its own desires they tend to be narrow "more money for our department" desires). I agree that in the real world governments usually take moral positions as a marketing exercise. If there's lots of religious conservatives, ban gay marriage. If there's lots of secular liberals, fly rainbow flags everywhere.

I was simply trying to redirect the argument back to the actual point of contention.

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