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.

I don’t get the sense that there’s anything I could say to get you to stop pretending like you can mind read my epistemology and consistently misrepresent it.

Which is really ironic because my underlying philosophy and approach is identical to Scott’s. I’m not innovating.

I did indulge in a bit of mind reading when I claimed you might be applying different standards to different ideas, but when I see an inconsistency, I cannot help but point it out. The simplest thing to say in that situation is to describe your standards, and to point out how you're actually applying them consistently across ideas, using the claims we've been discussing as examples.

"Identical to Scott's" doesn't really cut it, unless you're literally Scott himself, our interpretations of his work might be different, after all.

Your whole paragraph about libertarians is baffling. But then you bringing in “democracy” as a comparison point was inappropriate and unhelpful from the start.

I was making a pretty basic point about rationalizing one's biases away. And as for "inappropriate and unhelpful", I wish I could do better, but since you don't really say what your issue is, it's hard for me to address it.

This is not a good faith take in a conversation branching off from the fact TTV (among others) claims there is evidence they have for the courts and that we in the public could see, and where one of the strongest arguments against any meaningful election fraud is that the claims were investigated.

Forget “proving” it happened. We’re pretty far from actual evidence suggesting meaningful election fraud took place because the many claims did not survive scrutiny.

This is where our conversation started. The substance of TTV's claims was not my concern anywhere in our conversation.

You’re doing an election fraud version of Sagan’s garage dragon and it’s tiresome to have to address your apples to orange comparisons with e.g. police and crime.

If Sagan's garage dragon involved screaming at the believer that they're a far-right conspiracy theorist, instead of investigating, you'd have a point. All I'm saying is that the case is suspicious enough that it warrants an investigation, rather than dismissing it out of hand like it's currently being done.

And now on the new thread you’re also responding in a way that isn’t even wrong because you can’t seem to grasp the actual point I was making. I might be wrong but it’s not because you refuted my points.

Take a breath and read slower.

While this may be occasionally good advice for me, it's a swing and a miss here. First, I'm not sure what's the point of bringing up the other thread, other than to attempt to distract from this one, but more importantly, I think you're just plain wrong. But let's leave that for the other thread.

You’re implying investigations didn’t happen regarding allegations made.

A lot did. Are there significant allegations that weren’t?

Nowhere did I say investigations shouldn’t happen. That’s a pretty stupid stance.

It’s not specifically about TTV’s claims, they’re just the example of the day for a class of people and groups who did make strong allegations, which fell apart upon investigation.

A lot of investigations happened and a lot of people out there failed to update when the allegations could not be substantiated.

Overall, I’m not going to engage with someone I see consistently misrepresenting my positions after I try to correct a misunderstanding.

Try harder or don’t, I’m just giving you notice.

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