site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   29676 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 18, 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.

I think you'll find it agreeable that diversity without the dogmatism (and in particular the virulent progressive strain of it) is a good thing, and a certain amount of it is necessary for a healthy and functioning society. The same can be said for equality as well. But, I reject your dichotomy as a false dilemma. I think the research bears out the notion that greater levels of equality, or rather the lack of inequality if the former is too politically charged, leads to better overall outcomes. Saying this as a far-right leaning person myself doesn't necessarily make me uncomfortable either. Liberals not leftists have a monopoly on terms like diversity and equality.

The research is written by people with an agenda. The US has both more "inequality" and better overall outcomes than the rest of the western world, which argues against that rather strongly. Same for "diversity"; lots of research up and down swears diverse teams do better, then we look around and we find homogeneous teams which did really extraordinary things.

I'm all for being skeptical of motivated reasoning, but I'm not a priori dismissive of a body of research that does exist, that seems to lend to support for more equitable societies being healthier. I'm aware of absolutely 'no' research, save for somebody pointing it out to me, that suggests less equitable societies have lower rates of crime, poverty, life satisfaction, etc.

Your last point is interesting to me. I'm not even aware of a reputable institution that claims diverse teams do better. That is if my understanding of "diverse" is calibrated to mean the same thing I think you're implying.

I'm all for being skeptical of motivated reasoning, but I'm not a priori dismissive of a body of research that does exist, that seems to lend to support for more equitable societies being healthier.

That term "healthier" isn't well defined and is generally used to hide circular definitions (the research will include in its definition something which is equivalent to inequality itself). The people pushing this can generate as much research as they care to.

Your last point is interesting to me. I'm not even aware of a reputable institution that claims diverse teams do better. That is if my understanding of "diverse" is calibrated to mean the same thing I think you're implying.

The business journals are full of such claims, so I think you just don't consider that field reputable (as indeed you should not)

Well I can't confess to being well read on any business journals, so unfortunately I can't comment on them. If your remark is meant more generally to gesture in the direction of pointing out how much garbage is littered throughout the social sciences, this isn't pointing out anything researchers haven't known for a long time. I deal with it quite regularly myself. That said, I don't see much opportunity to engage further with your remark, as it doesn't actually address any of the direct claims that are made. Not that I'm faulting you for it, I don't have much time to read books people throw at me either. But based on what I've read as highlighted above, this at least does pass the sniff test to me. I'll leave it to someone else to tear the data apart.

greater levels of equality

terms like diversity and equality

Nomenym didn't say "equality," they said equity, which is not the same thing. To quote a passage repeated in various places:

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.

(Emphasis added.)

You can see how trying to equalize all outcomes between individuals and groups and increasing diversity are goals at tension, yes?

Nomenym didn't say "equality," they said equity, which is not the same thing. To quote a passage repeated in various places...

Fair enough. However I think my usage still converges with the point you're making quite well.

You can see how trying to equalize all outcomes between individuals and groups and increasing diversity are goals at tension, yes?

If by that you mean there are always innate and fragile fault lines that underlie the mutual cooperation and peaceful engagement of diverse groups, sure; I have no problem with that. Lee Kuan Yew (the founder of modern Singapore) thought race and religion were two of those things, which is why they required delicate social managing to keep the peace between diverse cultures and ethnic groups. So we know it can be done. Not saying it's easy. I'm not even saying it's always desirable. Only that it's possible.

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