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.

Who was that senator or other guy who, went caught about doing naughty naughty, went on the attack with "I am a gay American"?

Lemme see if I can look him up - Jim McGreevy, that's who.

I'm used to politicians having enormous egos and no shame, but a mere staffer is pushing it a bit.

And in the current case, waving identity about like a shield probably will not save his job, but it might allow him to get a job at some LGBT NGO or other, because there's just a big experiential gap about how big of a faux pas it is.

I don't think it's even that, it's the "how do I get away without admitting fault" reflex at work and he's diverting attention by "This is about my sexuality, isn't it, bigots?" If he was BIPOC/trans/female etc. he'd try that too, because if he fesses up that yeah, he did get his ashes hauled over a desk in the Senate hearing room, well that's not going to help him. I don't know if a criminal trial could be possible here (what exactly is illegal to do in that place?) but certainly maybe a civil trial? Anyway yeah his job is gone, this is all just damage control to make the firing as soft a landing as possible: don't press charges and there won't be a counter-suit about discrimination on a protected status.

I suppose if there is video evidence that shows yes indeed it's him and yes indeed that is what he is doing, there's no chance of getting away with " I love my job and would never disrespect my workplace" as a denial, unless he wants to claim it's all AI deepfakery? For some political agenda, but then again who cares enough about a staffer to do that?

Who was that senator or other guy who, went caught about doing naughty naughty, went on the attack with "I am a gay American"?

Lemme see if I can look him up - Jim McGreevy, that's who.

Wrong on two counts. He was Governor of New Jersey. And that wasn't an attack, that was his resignation speech. McGreevy was actually reasonably honest for a New Jersey politician (a low bar to be sure). Sure, he was having gay sex behind his wife's back, but when his gay lover tried to blackmail him he turned the fucker in and resigned. Wikipedia doesn't mention the blackmail, but neither I nor the New York Post has forgotten.

I didn't remember his exact job description, and there was another scandal round about then about some other politician flying in his mistress (or flying off to see his mistress) on the public dime or something.

But I think "okay yeah I was not alone having an affair while married, it was with another man not another woman" is not defensible by claiming "I am a gay American". What is that but a counter that the only reason you are being chastised is due to your sexuality? No, politicians who get caught in affairs with women are also held to the same standards. You're not having to resign because you're gay, it's because you were fucking around and cheating on your wife, and you don't get to play the martyr here.

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