site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   26205 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 1, 2024

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.

They're sincere, yes, and also it will have an effect beyond just theater. I'll take Reddit as an example, let's say that the lawmakers decide to require ID verification to view NSFW content. There will still be tons of porn on Reddit, but they'd have to search for something not tagged NSFW, which would eliminate the majority of mainstream porn subreddits.

If you want to say that that's not going to be terribly effective, I agree with you. People will definitely still be able to find pornography if they want it. There's more than enough untagged porn on reddit, and kids (really, we're talking about male teens and preteens here, right, so I suppose saying "kids" is a little misleading) asking for porn could get themselves into trouble, and there definitely would be teenagers asking for porn or where to find porn in this hypothetical. But it would dissuade a good amount because the low hanging fruit would be eliminated. And call it misguided if you want, but these aren't the actions of fascist dictators or people who just want control for control's sake. They just don't want kids watching this crap.

But it would dissuade a good amount because the low hanging fruit would be eliminated.

Yeah, I'm pretty much always frustrated by "the law can't stop all [x]" arguments against a given law, because it's a fully-general argument against laws in general. No society has ever caught all murderers (indeed, in the current US, only about half get solved). No law will ever stop all thefts. And speed limits certainly don't keep huge numbers of drivers from speeding. Yet, few people if any ever use this to argue for doing away with laws against murder or theft. (I have seen a few libertarians use it to argue for doing away with speed limits, though.)

What matters is whether or not it deters enough people, not some unachievable ideal of total deterrence.

And call it misguided if you want, but these aren't the actions of fascist dictators or people who just want control for control's sake. They just don't want kids watching this crap.

Eh... I'm skeptical that this is the extent of the social conservative movement on this topic. Minors getting exposed to adult content is the most immediate driver (and for some things, like the problem of minors getting bullied by people flashing porn at them, I can pretty strongly agree with), but there are definitely social conservatives that think adults having reduced access to porn is a "good thing".

If ID laws intended for minors also incidentally reduce adult porn usage, of course most conservatives will be completely fine with that, if not celebrating it. I'm sure some of them would want to implement more restrictions that also affect adults explicitly, but that's not the majority, and I don't think you'll see legislation doing that any time soon barring some religious revival.

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