site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   26353 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 8, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

and if those two sets of outliers fall into generally the same range of ability for whatever reason, then competition between them is fair

if

You know, being a mod and seeing the moderation queue makes me wonder how the previous ones didn't have a nervous breakdown from the sheer number of spurious and pointless reports.

This one caught one for "low-effort", and while a laconic dismissal isn't a robust rebuttal, in this case it's clearly obvious that you're disputing a load-bearing aspect of @guesswho 's claims, and both of you have discussed your concerns in more detail. Someone following up a string of high-effort comments with a low one will not be scolded for it.

To the person who reported this, come on, you lose the right to complain about being dogpiled and unfairly reported if you're going to engage in frivolous reporting yourself.

At the very least, I have personally done the same if without the mods at the time taking umbrage, and so have many others. So from precedent and enlightened self-interest, I don't see anything here worth complaining about.

Yeah, if. That's why I'm inviting anyone at all to provide data, if they're so sure they're obviously correct.

I am glad we've identified the crux of the disagreement. You expect that two different groups of people should have broadly equivalent results because they represent two wider groups of people, one of which is doing their best to resemble the other, if the opposite isn't proven. Most people arguing with you, including me, expect that two different groups of people should have broadly different results, because they have different origins and the athletic results of transwomen depend on how much they resemble their natal sex physiologically, again, if the opposite isn't proven. Neither side really has any data, so both sides resort to "obviously-ing" they way out.

I do not claim that they will obviously have similar performance.

I claim that the other side's reasoning is deeply flawed, and we're actually at a state of ignorance about relative performance.

I claim that there's a simple empirical metric that we can use to determine fairness, that's easy to measure and calculate, and we can use that to answer the question just as soon as anyone bothers to measure it.

I claim that absent any current evidence or valid logic to expect unfairness, we should default towards liberty and freedom and granting rights for now.

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