site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   27329 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.

it'd be better to let "cancelling" be done by the state, because then people can defend themselves and a court can decide if they're truly guilty of the offense.

Yes and no, it's a big challenge to take on govt-backed institutional cancellers in court. In Australia we had a case where some uni students complained about not being allowed into the Indigenous-only computer lab. This angered an Indigenous administrative worker, Prior, who took them to the human rights commission, which is like an arbitrator before you get to court. The commission didn't bother to tell 2 out of 3 they were even being investigated for several years, before Prior asked them to pay $5K lest she sue. She actually managed to get 5K out of one fellow, Findlater, since he wasn't sure he could afford a legal battle.

Earlier, student Alex Wood, who has started a Gofundme website to raise money from public supporters for a legal costs bill of $41,000 for Ms Prior’s solicitor Susan Moriarty, told the inquiry he had feared the false racism claims would ruin his life and tarnish his late father’s legacy.

He told the inquiry: “I am 22, effectively exonerated in court, dragged through years of legal ­action, let down by my university and the commission, and now I am stuck with a $41,000 bill.

“I thought I’d lose my job and not be able to get a job when I graduated. As 18C stands … it can be used in a malicious way to persecute the innocent.”

After Mr Wood wrote on Facebook “Just got kicked out of the unsigned indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation?” in May 2013, he was accused by Ms Prior of acting unlawfully under section 18C, investigated by the commission and sued for $250,000.

Happily all ended well since Wood and co managed to get costs IIRC. Still a huge waste of time. I'm not quite sure of all the details here since it's a long and complex story but my general point is: how many people can afford lengthy court cases? And what kind of people will end up staffing the human rights commissions you end up with? If our conservative media didn't blow up the case into a national event, Prior probably would've been able to get away with it.

Yeah that case was disgusting. Exhibit A for why the HRC should be abolished.

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