site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   25097 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 25, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And the people claiming this don't even really like Romney all that much!

I would guess that most of the people complaining are more concerned about who he was running against. And for some of those people, more specifically the race of that person.

  • -28

I would guess that most of the people complaining are more concerned about who he was running against. And for some of those people, more specifically the race of that person.

The resulting comment chains to your statement is yet another example of the problems caused by using words such as "most" and "some" because those words are vague and can be interpreted in so many ways.

At this point, I say you should put a percentage estimate with your confidence on that estimate (e.g. I am 90% confident 5% of Romney voters voted for him because they didn't like Obama being black) and this should reveal what you really think about the matter. And if your estimate is reasonable it should take some heat off your back.

As I said earlier, I am 100% confident that some Romney supporters voted for him out of anti-black animus, and some Obama supporters voted for him out of anti-white animus. The numbers are probably quite small in both instances. But I disagree that that is the source of the heat.

  • -11

You haven't actually done what I suggested.

What percentage of people that voted do you think did with that as their primary motivation to do so? 0.1%, 1%, 5%, 20%, 50%? You can even give a number range, like 1 - 20%. If you can't do this then you're speaking with no conviction in your thought.

You might be thinking why does this matter? Well, it matters because it reveals your motivation for making that statement. If you think 50% of voters did so with racism as their main priority, it tells me that your view of the world is flawed and I should view any argument/statement you make with more scrutiny. If you think it's 0.1% of the voters, then why did you even bring up the point? It's so miniscule that it's irrelevant. You failed to provide any other reason for why people might be against the opposition candidate other than the race factor so it's reasonable to assume that you think racism is a significant enough contributing factor.

When you're providing an explanation for something but that explanation is like the 8th or 9th in the list of reasons that matter and you provide no other reasons, and nobody else has provided the more likely reasons, well it seems to imply you have some kind of agenda or you want to push some kind of perspective. It's poisoning the well, and it's not conducive to a productive conversation. There probably is something interesting and insightful in the point you brought up, after all I've seen some amazing conversations here based on disagreements but the resulting comment chain so far has not been enlightening on anything of substance other than the nature of your character at this moment in time.

The charitable view is that you just some off-hand remark you made without giving it much thought, but the fact that you continue to argue rather than saying it was just some careless wording on your part seems to suggest something else. I get that it's human nature to get defensive, especially when you get piled on like this, but it's not doing you any favors here.

So I'm defending Mitt Romney (God help us and save us) because I'm an anti-black racist? Good to know!

As I said, only some people who are defending Mitt Romney are possibly motivated by anti-black racism. Just as some people who supported Obama were anti-white racists.

  • -10

You can probably find someone who voted against Obama because "I don't want no nigger president" or something of the sort. But, you know who the only candidate who managed to (briefly)bump Trump out of his frontrunner spot in the 2016 primary was? Ben Carson. You know, the sleepwalking black brainsurgeon. Herman Cain was a grassroots star, too. So was Allen West. Yes these people were crazy, but the tea party loved them. On the other hand there were lots of white liberals and rinos that they hated.

Everything we know about the backlash to the Obama administration points to it being driven by traditional values, tribal dynamics, and the rural-urban divide, not anti-black racism. 'Obama is unamerican' was a sentiment driven by him being a liberal(how many times does Trump say 'Americans vs socialists' or something similar? It's a lot) who grew up in Indonesia and was married to a woman who openly said she'd never been proud of America before.

I would guess that most of the people complaining are more concerned about who he was running against. And for some of those people, more specifically the race of that person.

Do not weakman in order to show how bad a group is. Especially when that group is "this forum," please.

I didn’t say anyone is "bad." I was describing their possible motivations, not their moral value as people. For example, Trump was right to say that there were "very fine people on both sides" at Charlottesville; in fact, the vast majority were probably perfectly fine people. Even James Fields's actions were perfectly understandable, even if they were morally wrong. I have known of ]gang members who have done terrible things, but who are not terrible people](https://oaklandvoices.us/tag/lam-vo/page/2/). Whether a person's actions are wrong does not mean that the person is a "bad person," and indeed with some exceptions, claims about the moral worth of individuals are meaningless, at best.

  • -15

I didn’t say anyone is "bad."

I didn't say that you said anyone is bad. I modded you for violating the rule against weakmanning. Since you were apparently confused by the shorthand, here is the rule in its entirety:

There are literally millions of people on either side of every major conflict, and finding that one of them is doing something wrong or thoughtless proves nothing and adds nothing to the conversation. We want to engage with the best ideas on either side of any issue, not the worst.

Post about specific groups, not general groups, wherever possible. General groups include things like gun rights activists, pro-choice groups, and environmentalists. Specific groups include things like The NRA, Planned Parenthood, and the Sierra Club. Posting about general groups is often not falsifiable, and can lead to straw man arguments and non-representative samples.

Avoid posting solely about gaffes, misstatements, or general bad behavior from prominent people. Discussing policy implications is always fine, and concrete criminal or impeachable offenses are also fair game. For example, "Look at Congressman Jones being a jerk" is not OK; "congressman Jones is under suspicion of taking bribes" is fine, as is "congressman Jones's employment law is bad for these reasons . . ."

Sometimes we get good discussion about the consequences of gaffes, misstatements, or general bad behavior; for example, "here's Congressman Jones being a jerk, let's talk about the underlying reason why congressmen do this sort of thing regularly". In most cases, these should stand as valuable posts regardless of whether they refer to Congressman Jones or not.

Links to news stories should generally follow the above rules, although cannot be expected to adhere to them exactly. For instance, a news story which uses an anecdote to introduce a concept is OK (this is a very common framing discussion), a news story which is about tweets from non-prominent people reacting to some event isn't ok.

You broke that rule, and in particular the group under discussion was this forum, which I am particularly protective of, as we have discussed.

Don't.

I didn't say that you said anyone is bad.

Yes, you did: "Do not weakman in order to show how bad a group is."

If ascribing motives to people who post here is considered against the rules, fine. But I suggest clarifying that in the rules, because the rule you quote explicitly endorses ascribing motives to the common behavior of groups: "let's talk about the underlying reason why congressmen do this sort of thing regularly".

I didn't say that you said anyone is bad.

Yes, you did: "Do not weakman in order to show how bad a group is."

Which word in that sentence you quoted is the word "say" or "said?" Can you bold it for me?

"in order to show." What did you mean, if not that I was saying that the group is bad?

What did you mean, if not that I was saying that the group is bad?

That you had violated the rule against weakmanning.

Right. By means of ostensibly saying that the group was bad, right? Jesus, what is the point of claiming you didn't say what you said? It doesn’t undermine your broader point, which is that you don’t want people opining about the motives of members. That rule holds whether one thinks that the motive says something about the moral status of the person, the moral status of the motive, neither, or both.

More comments

It's only weakmanning to show how bad a group is if you assume that Gdanning thinks there is something bad about disliking Obama for his skin color.

I haven't assumed anything. But if you're suggesting that Gdanning should have been modded under "speak plainly" instead, your suggestion has been noted.

... do you have an example person you're highlighting, here? Because that's a pretty serious charge to just be throwing out for The Implication, especially given the previous poster was specifically talking about people on this forum.

It's extremely interesting how your go-to response to any claim you dislike is to demand evidence, or else discard it as invalid, but have no issues with divining the true motives of people you never even debated on the subject.

If you really know what is the point of bringing up attacks on Romney, even if you don't like him, it's to argue against the claim that attacks on someone more populist are justified. Any Republican will always be literally Hitler.

I have evidence, because I have been on here a while, and just as there are some commenters here who clearly have issues with Jews, there are some who have issues with blacks. Not all, nor even a majority, but some.

And, for the record, I demand evidence for claims that I like. I am not a fan of Justice Alito's jurisprudence, and so it would be great to dismiss him as a "partisan hack," but alas I can't, without evidence. Do you form your beliefs in a different manner?

  • -10

I have evidence, because I have been on here a while, and just as there are some commenters here who clearly have issues with Jews, there are some who have issues with blacks. Not all, nor even a majority, but some.

Normally I wouldn't do it, since I find these sort of requests disingenuous, but since you insist the above is a valid approach, can you please link the evidence that the same people objecting to how Romney was treated are the same people who have expressed a problem with black people?

And, for the record, I demand evidence for claims that I like. I am not a fan of Justice Alito's jurisprudence, and so it would be great to dismiss him as a "partisan hack," but alas I can't, without evidence

That doesn't mean your demands for rigor is in any way balanced.

Do you form your beliefs in a different manner?

Of course, evidence is just one of the factors that shapes my beliefs. I think very few people base their beliefs solely on evidence, nor do I think it's healthy to do so.

  • I think very few people base their beliefs solely on evidence, nor do I think it's healthy to do so.

Perhaps, that is a red herring. The issue is whether it is unhealthy to base belefs on a complete lack of evidence, or on things that purport to be evidence, but are not.

  • -10

I don't think I every met anyone who did the former, and practically everyone is guilty of the other to some extent or another. Arguable the latter is even a good reason to not base your beliefs solely on evidence.

and practically everyone is guilty of the other to some extent or another

That doesn't make it ok, and the proper response when someone points out that one has fallen victim thereto is thanks.

So how come you haven't thanked me for pointing out what you considered to be evidence that some of the people complaining about Romney's treatment actually have a problem with Obama's skin color, is not evidence of that?

Because that is not what you said, and if you meant to imply that, you are mistaken; as I explained, there is indeed evidence for my statement. That does not, of course, mean that the statement is necessarily correct. But it is consistent with the evidence.

  • -10
More comments

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