site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   26432 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 15, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That's fair pushback, what examples would you suggest as superior comparisons? From another post of mine:

I looked some more and wish I found out about Ali Alexander earlier. He posted a video on January 7th saying "I did call for people to enter the US Capitol" and later during a livestream "I started a riot for the sitting president of the United States" (though he also admitted he's prone to exaggeration and hyperbole). He was never charged with a crime. A judge even examined his conduct and dismissed him from a civil lawsuit brought by Capitol Police officers because the judge ruled his speech did not rise to the level of incitement. Do you believe this guy is comparable enough to Ray Epps? Compared to Alexander, Epps was treated harshly.

There's more people who called for occupying the Capitol ahead of J6, like Matt Bracken who said "we will only be saved by millions of Americans moving to Washington, occupying the entire area—if necessary, storming right into the Capitol. You know, we know the rules of engagement: If you have enough people, you can push down any kind of a fence or a wall." I don't know if Bracken was ever on site so it's not directly comparable to Epps, but Bracken never being charged with a crime is one more data point on the comparison board.

I made a bird's eye view comparison by contrasting Epps to all other J6 defendants and nothing stood out. I then tried to make a more direct comparison to individual cases and nothing stands out there either. So overall I see no reason to believe that Ray Epps was treated with unusual anything. Do you think that's an unreasonable conclusion?

So overall I see no reason to believe that Ray Epps was treated with unusual anything.

Are there any people like him who were on the scene, that loud who got no actual time?

I already mentioned Fuentes and Alexander who were on the scene and loud and were never even charged.

If "Alexander" refers to Jones, then you are again being misleading.

I'm not sure how you could've missed that I was talking about Ali Alexander, that was only one level above.

By reading stuff out of context? Why is every disagreement such a great mystery with you?

No worries dude, I understand. Apology accepted

Apology accepted

I actually appreciate that, you do deserve one. So, uh...: sorry.

(sigh)

Yes, we all live in Surkov's world, despite not even being Russian.

I don't understand what this means

Meaning, it's a theater. It's not 'real'. Fuentes is, just like e.g. McCain was. A seemingly independent agent of hidden powers. Playing a different role, sure.

All very confusing. Why bother asking your original question then? If you believe everyone I brought up is an actor playing a role, it would be helpful for you to state upfront which people you believe are 'real'. Even more helpful would be to explain what that even means but, one step at a time I guess.

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