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.

You’re the one who claims it has any validity

Oh. Well if you have any questions about what I believe, feel free to ask them, but if there's something that interests me less than you telling me what other people believe, it's you telling me what I believe.

You can’t just dismiss my reasoning on the grounds that I don’t believe the terms.

I can dismiss it on the grounds that I don't believe in X, you just think I do because you heard something that sounded like this to you, or that even though Y is a straightforward implication of X for you, it isn't for me or others. More broadly - feel free to point out the flaws in my reasoning, but if you're going to try to tell me what I believe, you're going to be ignored.

I didn’t see him do that here.

Doesn't matter, I was bringing up past conversations when responding to him.

It looks like ideologically directed social pressure: ‘you can’t sit with us unless you believe this and that’.

He can sit we me all he wants, but he does not get to portray himself as representative of my worldview, or adjacent to it.

Clearly he's not a progressive (unless he's lying, that's a different problem).

It's far from clear to me, even if he's being 100% honest.

So, if he doesn't want to become a groupless and stateless reject and eat alone every meal, he has to acquiesce to your demands of ideological conformity.

Weird how you let progressives create right-wingers by dissociating from people, and everyone else has to accept the label they put on their opponents.

You’re still avoiding the question of why showing up even matters, if you can just arbitrarily pick and choose when it applies, and when morality, or anything else, easily overrules it. If you do not deign to educate me, I’ll just ignore your “not showing up” objections from now on.

You’re still avoiding the question of why showing up even matters,

Yeah, like I said, I'm not going to answer your interpretations of beliefs I supposedly hold, that I haven't even brought into the conversation.

You brought it up in a different conversation a few days ago, which I linked. You're being inconsistent.

I don't know what the communication problem here is, but clearly we're going nowhere fast. So I'll exit here and I'll see you on another thread.

It's pretty simple, what I said in the other thread does not contradict the point "I don't see how there's anything morally suspect about wanting to stop the fertility industry". You did not bring up morality in the other thread where I responded to you, I did not bring up morality when I was responding, you did not bring up morality here, and you do not get to tell me that "showing up ideology" is about morality, if I'm the one believing in it, and you not. There's nothing inconsistent in what I said, and this whole part of the conversation was completely off topic.

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