site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   27234 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.

This is the new zoomer take on that old saw about sleeping under bridges. Male and female alike, nobody's allowed to show their tits for simps.

As for the sexism, I think it was a fig leaf from the start. Someone thought they could monetize the skanks. My guess is that the lawyers weren't consulted first and they had to be the guys to remind twitch that their average user is like 13. In any case, you can find better nudity on a bunch of better sites. And players worth watching don't have to get naked.

This is the new zoomer take on that old saw about sleeping under bridges. Male and female alike, nobody's allowed to show their tits for simps.

I don’t think this was about topfreedom/bare nipple advocates. I think it was about twitch not wanting to be a porn site.

This is the new zoomer take on that old saw about sleeping under bridges.

That old saw was absolutely correct. We ban sleeping under bridges because it imposes a cost on society, and a rich person sleeping under a bridge imposes the same cost on society that a poor person sleeping under a bridge does hence doing so is banned for everyone.

But a rich person wouldn't sleep under the bridge, which is the whole point of that saying. Namely, that what counts as a universal ban can often just be a targeted ban at a select group of people, even if that was never the intent.

There's nothing wrong with a targeted ban. All bans are targeted bans. Murder bans target murderers. Theft bans target thieves. Not all people would engage in all banned activities were they not banned. This has no bearing at all on whether such activities should be banned.

The point of the saying is that targeted bans are not seen for what they are, and that what may be an ostensibly universal ban is only focused on one particular group more than others.

It is, as you say, those with murderous inclinations who are most affected by bans on murder. But the existence of good targeted bans shouldn't be a shield for any particular one.

Framing it as a targeted ban at all, or as "focused on one particular group", is dangerously misleading, because it strongly implies intent.

The way I see it, the saying is a classic motte and bailey. The motte is that we should be careful that our universal bans are actually universal. The bailey is that any disparate impact is intentional, and any actually universal ban would not have disparate impact.

Yes, and if this was a more casual conversation, you would rightfully call me out on it. But I am not lying when I say that I only believe in the motte.

I think both you and @BurdensomeCount demonstrate the different perspectives one can approach this from. For one, it's about the relatively minor suffering diffused among all the rest of people of society, for the other, it's about the acute suffering of a much smaller and distinct subset of society. I feel like so much of the culture war is around who prioritizes which higher in what context. Personally, in this, I'm sympathetic to the point of the original quote, but unfortunately the point can't really be made convincingly to people who see it from the other angle.

Personally, in this, I'm sympathetic to the point of the original quote

Really? I wouldn't have expected this for someone who accepts:

For one, it's about the relatively minor suffering diffused among all the rest of people of society, for the other, it's about the acute suffering of a much smaller and distinct subset of society.

If you accept that framing you must accept that what is happening here is no different to the tragedy of the commons. By choosing to shit on the commons you are causing a minor suffering diffused to everyone in society while by choosing to behave properly and pay for the disposal of your waste you are taking a much bigger hit upon yourself and keeping the commons nice and feces free.

Pretty much everyone I know consider the tragedy of the commons to be an actual tragedy, they think that causing the minor suffering diffused upon the rest of society (in our example sleeping under bridges/shitting on the commons) in return for reducing the suffering upon yourself is a net bad and should be strongly discouraged, even if it leads to people having to pay more for their personal costs. Here that position translates to forbidding sleeping under bridges; it's directly isomorphic to the original tragedy of the commons and yet a large amount of people have the opposite views here than they do with the TotC.

I've seen a lot of takedowns of that obnoxious construction, but yours is the most clear and concise. Well done!

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