site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   21703 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.

How do the rules favor other trained lawyers, and what changes would you suggest?

It's not a thing you can change by just modifying a few conditions. The only meaningful way to get rid of the advantage of being a trained lawyer is to find an opponent who's also a trained lawyer or equivalent.

This incessant insistence on "if you REALLY were serious, you'd do it at a time and place and under circumstances of my choosing" is as annoying as rationalists insisting "if you REALLY were serious, you'd bet money".

The objection was on the rules themselves, not just that I'm a trained lawyer. I'm trying to separate the earnest objections versus the pretextual excuses from those unwilling to have their beliefs scrutinized. If someone objects to the rules but then offers no alternatives, I have nothing to go off.

Nobody can possibly give an exhaustive list of all the ways in which the rules can advantage a trained lawyer. Asking for them to give a list of rule objections just leads to a situation where they left one out or didn't phrase their objection properly, and you go "Ha ha, well now you admitted in advance the rules are okay, so I can do anything I want that you didn't mention, and you have no reason to complain".

It's just like the situation with rationalist bets, except instead of "you're probably not going to phrase the bet in a way free of loopholes" it's "you're probably not going to phrase your objection to the rules in a way free of loopholes".

I never asked for an exhaustive list, I just want some specifics on why the rules are unfair rather than just proclaiming they're unfair for unspecified reasons. Someone who knows their beliefs will crumble when it encounters a stiff breeze of scrutiny has an incentive to make up whatever excuse to keep them safeguarded, so I need some method to discern who has earnest objections and who's just making shit up.

Let's start with "as a trained debater, you have a higher chance of being able to say things with subtle flaws that your opponent cannot resolve in time".

(And if your response is "fine, I'll do X so that's not a problem," that won't work since it isn't an exhaustive list.)

So it's not the rules I proposed that are the problem but rather that my real-time debate skills are apparently too high. If this is a concern to anyone, I'm more than happy to leave the door open to any participant who wants to revisit an exchange if they feel they weren't quick enough on their feet at that particular moment. I'm bending over backwards and showcasing my absolute willingness to accommodate people's concerns however possible.

If this is a concern to anyone, I'm more than happy to

I will repeat from what I just posted:

And if your response is "fine, I'll do X so that's not a problem," that won't work since it isn't an exhaustive list.

An endless list of complaints is consistent with someone making up excuses to avoid having their beliefs scrutinized so I still have no way to determine who's being earnest.

More comments

To really even things up, would you be willing to suffer some light head trauma?

Just to make things fair here.

Right. It's like dealing with the Devil. You may not know how you're going to get screwed over. You may be able to look the contract over carefully and not see a catch. But you can be sure there is one and you're going to Hell without getting the full benefit apparently promised, because the Devil's that much better at this game than you are.

Being a lawyer is not magic.

Nobody here is going to be impressed if @ymeskhout tries to win on a technicality instead of the substance of the issue. Moreover, if he did act in some kind of unreasonable procedural way, it’s going to decrease anyone ever being willing to go on the podcast, which is against his demonstrated preferences.

But you can try to lay the grounds for the excuse that anyone debating an issue with him and doing poorly is because of legal superpowers and not on the merits.

Or you can propose a different format. Or find a lawyer who holds the relevant beliefs I guess.

Nobody here is going to be impressed if @ymeskhout tries to win on a technicality instead of the substance of the issue. Moreover, if he did act in some kind of unreasonable procedural way

Debate skills let you win in a good-sounding way, not in a procedural way. You say something and your opponent can't respond, or you demolish something your opponent says. You may really have said something with a subtle flaw that your opponent didn't pick up on, and you "demolished" your opponent through bad reasoning, but your debate skills will make it look good for the audience.

As someone who spent a little time in high school debate I assure you this is not true by default.

We, as an audience, are not typical. Just look at the numerous essays worrying about lawyerly superpowers in painfully intricate details.

I think you’re way overestimating how much it matters that @ymeskhout is a lawyer relative to him simply being very sharp and, it seems, having the facts on his side.

Skill issue.

It's a trust issue. People are familiar with the conduct of lawyers with an axe to grind, and simply know better than to voluntarily place themselves in front of that buzzsaw.

I said "trained lawyer or equivalent". "Or equivalent" includes being a trained debater who doesn't actually practice law.

This is also a good example of not being able to phrase the objection to cover all the loopholes in advance. I thought I covered being sharp and having skills, but it seems you think the way I phrased it didn't.

It's essentially the rationalist bet scenario.

I think you’re overly worried about loopholes and training instead of whether someone who has good evidence has a fair shot in a discussion, not a court of law or formal competition.

You’re actually demonstrating a talent for nitpicking much as a lawyer or policy analyst might. Raw talent can go a long way.

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