site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   24831 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 6, 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.

Being a "True Opponent" of either Putin (and establishment in Russia) or Obama (and establishment in US) does not have the same result. So by "True Opponent", what do you mean exactly?

So what's the difference? The delivery mechanism for the explosive charge that ends you, the lunch menu of the prison you rot in without a trial or what?

What? You didn't answer my question in any way shape or form. If you can't tell one country from another and what is better about some of them then what are you even here to discuss?

I think I can tell the difference quite well. I can characterize it in specific terms.

And indeed I think that predictions that use my characterization are more accurate than yours.

For instance I can explain why the UK jails a lot more (about 4x) people for political crimes than Russia or why Russia more readily kills its political prisoners.

Can you?

what are you even here to discuss?

pol·i·tics

1. c. the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

In those terms, a true opponent is someone who can challenge such a control. With or without violence, with or without designs of control for himself. Anyone who endangers the serenity of a sovereign.

I use the word true because as you know, it is routine in the exercise of power by foxes to setup fake opposition that only ever demands more control for the establishment. These people are usually left alone, because they are friends, not enemies.

So where would you rather live I suppose is the real question? Bangladesh? Russia? USA? UK? France? Iran? They are all very different places. Just because some levers of power look the same to you does not make the world flat.

I don't understand how my own preference is of any relevance. But if you must know, the type of political regime a place lives under is of little interest to me.

Political regimes are all transient and unless they are degenerate, they aren't central to life. The quality of the food, local weather, economic policy and crime rate has a much stronger influence on my preferences than how a people govern themselves.

If pressed I would say I have a preference for monarchy, since it's the most stable regime and I see individuals as more moral than groups, but that is slight; I am no enemy of republics. All I really care for is that a place is well administered and that state capacity is well balanced to population and geography. Give me competent secure rulers who let normal people live their lives, the rest is secondary.

So if I had to give examples of places I like: Switzerland, Luxemburg, Japan, Estonia, United Arab Emirates, El Salvador, Czechia, Singapore; I like these in no particular order. I don't like the ones you listed, except for a dutiful fondness for my home nation and its people whom I don't need any rational explanation to love and be loyal to.

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