site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   21718 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.

My suggestion is to drop the topic.

You gain nothing from discussing it with those you agree with and my suspicion is that your approach is if anything anti-convincing to those you want to convince and may make them disinclined to listen to you elsewhere.

You fundamentally do not appear to "get it" for this topic, and as someone on the other side I was so blown away at all clear Dean was in this criticisms. Since that doesn't work for you I don't think anything will.

This may be too much of a two screens situation.

That said your post generated lots of good discussion so who the fuck knows.

I'm sorry but I don't know what to do with this response. If the problems with my argumentation style are so clear, why are they so difficult to specify? I understand that some issues can be difficult to articulate precisely but even so that shouldn't be a barrier from suggesting alternative ways I can communicate myself. A silly example but I can understand how responding to a text message with "Thanks." comes off as curt and rude, even if I can't articulate the exact reasons why. But even then I can still suggest alternatives like "Thanks!🥰" or whatever. I would love to hear a simple suggestion along the lines of "Instead of saying X, try saying Y" or whatever the issue is.

I've asked exactly this from Dean this many many many times and he's never taken me up on the offer. Given the persistent contours of this grudge, I can only assume that his real problem isn't with my argumentation style, but the fact that I haven't adopted the conclusion he prefers. I can't just assume that people are operating in good faith if the evidence suggests otherwise.

Accept that you have a blind spot and give up, or choose to believe those who disagree with you on this have a blind spot and give up.

It's been explained to you simply, at length, and with repetition over the course of years and has never landed and therefore will likely never land.

I gave up years ago and Dean seems to have updated his mental model of you to figure that you are liar*.

I repeat that your model of how we perceive your behavior on this should be as a Darwin* - discussion will get nowhere and time will be wasted with pointless demands for more engagement.

*Apologies Dean if you disagree with these characterizations.

Ok I appreciate the attempt. I'll stick with option c until I see evidence to convince me otherwise.

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