site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   21702 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 14, 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.

I must have missed these discussions, because I've never seen this as far as I recall. How does this argument work?

My understand was that this was based on a statistic that found married women are more conservative than single women. There are a few different reasons this might be/have been the case. I could see a social pressure, stronger in the past, expecting that a wife would adopt political views more in line with her husband/would vote in step with her husband. Married women will be older on average than single women so the basic older>conservative pipe line. The institution of marriage could change how someone evaluates a lot of different questions, putting priority on their children over welfare for strangers, etc. This is at least my vague understanding of the situation (but it could be a reference to something totally different?), and some possible arguments.

I think the elephant in the room is the baby. It’s absolutely amazing how much having a baby in the family can shift your perspective on a whole host of issues. I find the biggest difference is in the value of stability, of protecting the child both physically and emotionally, and in choosing the extended family and close friends over other people and things. When you have to think about your kid growing up in the world, it suddenly isn’t all that appealing to suggest revolutionary changes, or fighting the power. When you say “defund the police,” some part of your unconscious brain understand that you’re chaining up the guard dog that is tasked with keeping your family from being robbed. When you say “upend the political system,” again some part of your brain understands that you rely on the rest of society being stable so you can be economically stable and safe. These things become a lot less desirable when you’re not just asking if I will be safe and economically stable, but if you’re risking those things for the baby. I don’t think that it’s a straight liberal or conservative thing, just a stronger preference for stability and a strong urge to favor things that they associate with stability.

Also, selection effects, whereby more conservative women are more likely to get married.

Married women will be older on average than single women so the basic older>conservative pipe line. The institution of marriage could change how someone evaluates a lot of different questions, putting priority on their children over welfare for strangers, etc. This is at least my vague understanding of the situation (but it could be a reference to something totally different?), and some possible arguments.

Caveats about a bubble and all but...

Among the women my wife socializes with, and in the polarized climate of my state with regard to schools secretly transitioning children, it's a pretty hot third rail in their interactions. But thus far, every single mom my wife has touched that third rail with (often after months of trying to feel them out) is horrified and aghast at the policies public schools are fighting tooth and nail for. It's utterly inconceivable that a public institution would take such serious health measures with their children and keep it a secret from them. And yet here we are.

Every other issue is a toss up honestly. But, that is the single issue which, for whatever reason, D's have decided makes you "far right", and we've yet to encounter a mom who supports it in the wild.

There's also the fact that living with, being tied to, and having lots of intimate conversations with a person you've committed yourself to just changes your worldview to be in line with them. It's very difficult to get that close to someone and not seriously evaluate their worldview in a way you might not if it were just presented to you by a stranger.

This effect is probably stronger if your own worldview is weaker or less reasoned. While social pressure plays into it, I think it's more the informal pressure of being exposed to contrary ideas by someone you love rather than any formal pressure to conform.

(This was actually a factor for me in dating -- I really did not like many of the conservative women I met whose worldviews seemed imposed on them from the outside instead of something they'd worked out themselves with fear and trembling. I was fortunate to meet my girlfriend who is both not crazy or a progressive ideologue, and actually well-informed on what she thinks.)

How far back does this trend of "marriage -> more right-wing" go for women? A century? Two centuries?

When all women were married, women were generally more conservative than men, and now it’s the opposite.

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