site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   27245 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 missing the actual idol of atheism "Satanic Temple", which is floyd. Create a caricature of floyd sitting atop a pile of illegal drugs and guns, and they'd melt down instantly.

But they'd never let you do that in the first place, and if they did, the person who destroyed the statue would never be caught for some reason.

Edit: super saiyan jesus riding mlp would be badass and I want it to be real

Edit2: changed

You're missing the actual idol of atheism, which is fentalyl floyd. Create a caricature of floyd sitting atop a pile of illegal drugs and guns, and they'd melt down instantly.

This is a particularly pathetic example of weakmanning, and just a crappy post in general.

Improve your contributions, this place isn't just for unzipping and pissing fire.

I'm not weakmanning. I'm referring specifically to those people who created that other statue, which to be fair doesn't represent all "atheists" depending on your definition of atheist.

But in this context where the subject of the discussion is the "Satanic Temple" aka "atheists" it should be clear who I'm referring to. And the "Satanic Temple" explicitly endorses blm and other similar messaging.

I sincerely believe there is not a single card carrying member of the "Satanic Temple" who would publicly denounce floyd and if I'm wrong here, I would welcome any example and update my priors on this.

I'm not weakmanning. I'm referring specifically to those people who created that other statue, which to be fair doesn't represent all "atheists" depending on your definition of atheist.

"To be fair," describing an unspecified, fictional group of people engaging in behavior you have made up, and calling it "atheist" behavior, is the reason your comment is an unacceptable weakman.

But in this context where the subject of the discussion is the "Satanic Temple" aka "atheists"

Members of the Satanic Temple are atheists, but they are certainly not typical atheists and the vast majority of atheists are not Satanists, nor would be interested in being associated with a Satanic temple. So you cannot use the two terms interchangeably.

I sincerely believe there is not a single card carrying member of the "Satanic Temple" who would publicly denounce floyd

That wasn't your initial assertion, though. Even if your actual argument was something about members of the Satanic Temple also being BLM supporters, you didn't even attempt to link that back to the original topic, just went on a rant about how their "actual idol is fentanyl Floyd."

You aren't new, you know better. Stop posting like this.

I admit I made a mistake in the original post with the wording, since it was definitely yaken in a way that wasn't intended. But you're also weakmanning my post. There's no "unspecified group" at all here. I meant to refer to the "Satanic Temple" specifically mentioned in the top level post and made a mistake equivocating atheists with them.

Anyways this all directly addresses the top level post and discussion, where OP proposes creating a

deliberately provocative anti-atheist symbol

and other commenters replying with the difficulty of creating such a symbol. The symbol I proposed is of course, deliberately provocative and difficult to ignore. While it doesn't cleave exacly perfectly along atheist / christian lines is besides the point. It's a symbol that's aimed approximately at the people who created goat statue, who aren't exactly attacking theists either but have their own more complex goals.

You're missing the actual idol of atheism, which is fentalyl floyd.

This is complete nonsense. Even here on TheMotte there are probably dozens of atheists who are anti-BLM.

you're right

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