site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   25102 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.

Often 'tyranny' is narrowly defined as the tyranny of the centralized state

I approve of this definition, and would add that centralization is necessary for tyranny. Your examples are all centralized, after all.

Tyranny is the undue restriction of liberty, and especially historically, there are many powers besides the state that can restrict liberty. However, as the state expands, it generally displaces and destroys these smaller power centers, which is generally a good thing.

I can't find a definition of "tyrant" that skips over the requirement that they are (or are similar to) a ruler. "Tyranny" is a bit less specific, but it still tilts heavily towards oppressive power from a specific centralized source.

Yes, you can have a tyrannical boss or romantic partner, but that's generally exaggeration for effect instead of a true description.

In the modern developed world we've mostly but not entirely gotten rid of non-state tyrannies. In the past, I think it would be appropriate to refer to a slaveholder or a the head of a clan as a tyrant over his subjects.

And yet all the places people want to live have such governments...

Not by choice.

There are places with weaker and stronger governments on the earth and generally people do not move from places with stronger governments to places with weaker governments.

and generally people do not move from places with stronger governments to places with weaker governments.

Which is why Chinese immigration is constantly overwhelmed with applicants while basically nobody bothers trying to come to the US.

No, "strong" and "weak" are doing a whole lot of heavy lifting and also don't evenly distribute across populations. One could argue that the South African state, and a significant cross-section of its citizens, form a significantly "stronger" oppressive government bloc from the perspective of a smaller fraction of citizens who have enough time preference to prefer electricity tomorrow over the maintenance costs of that infrastructure today than can be found in any other Western nation, whose governments (and supporting citizenry) are much weaker in that regard.

Those citizens are all emigrating to countries with "weaker" governments in the sense that that government is either unwilling or unable to enforce similar terms- in essence, the taxes are lower. Sure, the (example) Australian government and people are very awful in a number of other ways, but until they start shutting the power off every night because muh carbon or fail to enforce law and order because muh racism (the latter is still a thing in any US-aligned nation, but to a much smaller degree than it is in SA), they're better masters than their fellow South Africans (and their government) would be, hence their migration.

lol, lmao even.

I guess it's easy to argue for anything when one ignores all the parts of history that don't fit it. But I somehow am not convinced that exit from overbearing centralized governments is something that doesn't deserve consideration because you personally don't consider it "general" enough.

I'm sorry but I just find it ridiculous to argue that fleeing conscription and taxes isn't a common reason for migration throughout history. People have been doing it ever since either were invented.

The problem of the White Russians wasn't that the emerging Bolshevik state was strong -- actually it was significantly weaker at the time than any of the countries to which the émigrés went -- it's that it was Bolshevik. The US government was much stronger than the Soviet government, despite being less overbearing.

that fleeing conscription and taxes isn't a common reason for migration throughout history.

The US does not have conscription, while countries with significantly weaker governments like Syria or Ukraine do.

If you look a few comments up the chain, conscription and taxes are what we're talking about, not some abstract notion of strength you can argue to mean anything.

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