site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   29245 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 19, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In non-shithole cities, you can just stay at a decent hotel, walk outside, and you will already be somewhere that people want to be. Hotel locations are not typically chosen without attention to the local surroundings, so properties that are anything above the lowest tier of sketchy hotels will, by default, be in a location that's pleasant to visit. It is incredibly unfortunate that a place as naturally beautiful as San Diego has elected to ruin big chunks of the city with drug-addled lunatics camping on the sidewalks, but this isn't just some natural property of cities.

In the case of San Francisco, hotels were originally set up in what were then nice areas, which then collapsed. Unfortunately, most SF hotels are now in the most unpleasant part of the city (or, more accurately, two or three blocks from the most unpleasant part of the city). You could throw a dart at a map of San Francisco and hit a better area than the Four Seasons.

Yes, and the same is true of Seattle. But that’s kind of the point, that the locals accept that most visitors (especially business travelers) will see the worst of the city instead of just… cleaning up the worst of the city.

I think this is consistent with my claim that the Four Seasons was built in a good location and that San Francisco has elected to turn it into a shithole. Unfortunate. In one sense, @Tomato is correct that @2rafa is "visit[ing] cities incorrectly" and that more research is required, but I think "cities" is doing too much work there, when what we really mean is that the most pathologically progressive American cities have been ruined to the extent that you have to exercise a degree of attention that should never be necessary in first world hubs.

You don't have to do this in Geneva, Madrid, or Amsterdam. You just go to the Hyatt or Marriott website (or go independent if you want, it doesn't really matter for most purposes), select a hotel at the brand level you're comfortable with, and you will default to staying somewhere pretty neat. Sure, you could benefit from additional planning, but you don't need it to avoid being accosted by junkies.

I agree with everything you said, and no one should have to worry about making sure there isn't a homeless encampment a block away from a Four Seasons.

That said... 2cim isn't some yokel from Kansas City visiting San Francisco for the first time with her corn-fed husband and kids unexpectedly finding herself surrounded by syringes and shit. She is absolutely aware of the issues with San Francisco, and she's quite capable of finding and staying in parts of the city that are liveable.

In non-shithole cities, you can just stay at a decent hotel, walk outside, and you will already be somewhere that people want to be.

This is true. Traveling in Europe, I often just stay near the city center of a random city without doing much (or any) planning at all. No problems ever.

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