site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   26704 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 22, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You need to remember that most of the posters here are not Republicans, they're Gilfoyle-style Silicon Valley satanists. They like Trump for accelerationist reasons and because they find him entertaining, but if there were a serious threat of a Republican president actually enacting a socially conservative agenda most of them would swing so hard into the Democrats' camp that they'd make you look like the second coming of Ronald Reagan in comparison.

Describing the negative attributes of "most" posters here is fraught, given that it's a one-way ticket to an argument about the thread meta, with attendant accusations of consensus-building. If you have a disagreement with specific posters, why not take it up with those posters? If you don't want to take it up with them directly, why not just go with "some"? Do you think "most" people here are going to look at this description and think "yeah, that's an accurate description of me, fair play"? If not, what sort of response are you expecting? The point you're making can be entirely legitimate, but the way you're making it seems like you're looking to start a fight.

You've been wracking up a lot of reports lately, and while most of them haven't been slam-dunk objections, a lot of your comments have been pretty marginal. "low effort" and "antagonistic" are a spectrum, and there has to be a line somewhere, but you've seemed inclined to ride the line lately. Your recent record is a string of warnings and temp-bans, and while you did make an effort-post recently reported for AAQC, the slack that buys is not infinite. The ban is going to be three days this time, and it will escalate if you continue making a habit of low-effort potshots. Please find a better way to channel your insights when you return.

From the outside, that was maybe more true under this place's prior home, but I think there are far more just out and out right-wingers or more accurately, people who have become more right-wing over time. Sure, there are some Grey Tribe or whatever people still here, but many of the comments here, policy-wise, when American politics come up, are just a more erudite version of the comments under any National Review or Federalist article.

Color me skeptical.

I believe that our more vocal wignats would all flip on a dime if a real threat to the gay agenda or the H1B visa regime were to present itself because as much as they might hate black people and the establishment, I imagine that they would hate their own ox getting gored even more.

In what possible way are H-1B visas a wignat's ox? In your fervor to put 'everyone who isn't a conservative who won't do anything but retreat until they can retreat no more and then wait for the eschaton' into the same box, you've come up with a lot of ideas that don't make any sense at all.

Ha ha no. I consider the obligatory parts of the Republican conservative agenda somewhat like the obligatory parts of the Islamic conservative agenda, only much less so. Instead of growing a beard, giving up alcohol, and mouthing some prayers 5 times a day, I just have to go to church once a week, beard optional. Oh, and abstain from drugs (wait, I already do that), infidelity (ditto), abortion (not equipped), stealing and murdering (again, already accomplished), etc. I suppose I'd have to cut down some on swearing, at least in polite company, but I'm rarely in such company anyway. I am, or perhaps was, a libertarian, but I'm not a libertine and most of the restrictions Republicans would impose would sit rather lightly, unless they went full Amish or police-state or something.

You say that but per your own words it is also "better to hold your nose and vote democrat than be mistaken for a faux news watching drumpf supporter".

Like I've said the last 3 times we've had this conversation, Kolmogorov Complicity is just Complicity.

You say that but per your own words it is also "better to hold your nose and vote democrat than be mistaken for a faux news watching drumpf supporter".

I said that (though I can't find it now) but I wasn't speaking about myself.

Like I've said the last 3 times we've had this conversation, Kolmogorov Complicity is just Complicity.

And I still haven't disagreed with you about that.

I can’t speak for the Silicon Valley comparison, but you are wrong on the second part. I’d prefer nearly anyone over Dems or neocons, and actual social conservatives of non-Islamic flavor are nowhere near the bottom of these preferences.

Eh, while most posters here aren't exactly fundamentalist Christians, they mostly know they'd adapt well enough to spending an hour or two a week in church.

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