site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   29486 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 4, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The point in your favor for suggesting moderation is balanced by your politely-phrased smug tone. "When the people like you," "If you can manage to write a measured and polite post," "maybe this isn't the place for you". Do you think you're better than him?

Yes, Chris is better than him. In the relevant sense of writing better posts, all this does have some correlation with all other ways in which you can judge a person's quality. The quality of posts an individual writes is strongly correlated across time, and I'd rather themotte have more chrises and less tyres, proportionally. There's a hierarchy - some people are better than chris, some people are worse than tyre, and a lot of noise, but it's true.

The first sentence is obviously somewhat inflammatory, but I don't think it should be. It is - first - a neutral statement of fact, phrased in the simplest possible way - and then, second - inflammatory because people do not like hearing it directly stated. But in order for the second meaning to exist, the first meaning must have come first, otherwise there'd be nothing to be upset about.

Do you think you're better than him?

Nope.

The point in your favor for suggesting moderation is balanced by your politely-phrased smug tone.

As someone who supports some of the causes he decries to varying degrees, how do you think I'm supposed to participate in this conversation exactly? I could respond in kind and we could fling feces at each other while you tut tut and enjoy the show. Or more realistically I'm buried in feces by the largely right-leaning commentariat.

I could craft a thoughtful response to some of his individual points, but what kind of conversation do you think he and I will have?

I could be the apologetic, liberal whipping boy who takes his lumps for That Bad Thing The People I Don't Like Did This Week.

I've done enough of all three. At a certain point a spade is a spade, and a bad post is a bad post. I can link you to massive exchanges I've had extending weeks and tens of thousands of words with FcfromSSC, gattsuru, professorgerm (now desolation, I believe?) and others so clearly I'm capable of having a decent conversation with people who hold very different beliefs. The process certainly changed my worldview.

That hasn't happened in...upwards of a year, I don't think? I'm sure you could make the argument that I changed rather than the space, but then I'd challenge you to show me any interesting and civil back-and-forth between a real liberal and conservative here that's happened recently. At a certain point, what exactly am I supposed to do with OP?

You would be correct, but I'm on indefinite hiatus from The Motte. I do sometimes miss reading FC, Gatt, you, but the value proposition of being here much stopped being worth it. Still puttering along under the old name at trace's spinoff, not that Mr. Bigshot is around there anymore. Good luck!

I see. Despite being on hiatus though, you managed to dig up a pretty obscure post.

Hope you're doing well!

I search the couple usernames I use every now and then. There's not a lot of professors germ around. Who knows, might come back for a bit and see what it's like. Addiction dies hard.

Been better, been worse. Enjoying parenting! Hope you're doing well too.

I can link you to massive exchanges I've had extending weeks and tens of thousands of words with FcfromSSC, gattsuru, professorgerm (now desolation, I believe?) and others so clearly I'm capable of having a decent conversation with people who hold very different beliefs.

I'm hoping professorgerm and FCFromSSC had a better experience out of it, because the example that you selected in the past [!] is... not what I would personally choose to highlight as an example of an extended decent conversation.

He's one of my favorite people to talk to.

I'm sure you could make the argument that I changed rather than the space, but then I'd challenge you to show me any interesting and civil back-and-forth between a real liberal and conservative here that's happened recently.

It's really quite sad.

I wonder if there's some way to promote more of this. Because the site is rather lopsided politically, it's significantly harder to have an evenhanded conversation.

I wonder if there's some way to promote more of this.

Yes, a mind-wipe that makes people entirely forget the last ~8 years.

While I agree a lot of people have become too bitter, possibly myself included, I would like anyone bemoaning how "lopsided" this place has become to explain what is the point of a discussion space, if not to reach conclusions, and move the conversation forward? How many iterations of the same conversation do we have to go through, before we're allowed to point out we've done this before and that things that were said and done have certain inescapable implications? Or are we meant to re-enact the same debates, with the same open-mindedness, like we're characters stuck in a 90's sitcom, that aren't allowed to go through any character growth?

The only other way I can think of is to relax the "discussion space" constraint, and turn it into a "get things done space", at least partially. If you want people to stop looking at each other with resentment, and mistrust, you need to give them a common cause.

I think a lot (but not all) of the consensus is more from change in which people participate, rather than through changing minds.

That doesn't change much, since a lot of it is driven by the background bitterness of non-progressives. I'm sure I could have a lovely conversation with Chris post-mindwipe, but as it stands I'm not in the mood to give so much benefit of the doubt to his ideology or to accept his framing of issues, and as a result he has me blocked. Or you can look at some of the reactions to FCFromSSCs position that the red tribe should cut all ties with the establishment, and build parallel institutions. There's certain type of talk that progressives don't like being around, but that kind of talk becoming more popular is a direct result of long-term exposure to Noticing.

Therefore, the only way to get past that is to forget you noticed. Either that, or work together on something that is irrelevant to the things you noticed. The act of cooperation itself could create trust and goodwill.

It's not just you, and I'm not particularly left leaning. There are way too many right wing doomers these days, and too few people who are willing to have a measured discussion. IDK when it changed (probably gradually I suppose), but I first noticed it probably 6-8 months ago.

so clearly I'm capable of having a decent conversation with people who hold very different beliefs

Good for you? I don't know who you are. This reads like you are trying to prove you're better than OP.

I think if you had stopped at your first two paragraphs ("Consider that [...] Orange Man Bad and TDS") you would have made a merited point and not sounded like you had something to prove.

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