site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35395 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 3, 2022

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.

24
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Over the past weekend I read an article entitled “Offensive Naming” (Note: There’s a paywall but you get the gist from the preview).

Essentially, the article cites 2 named people. One of which is a totally unremarkable Canadian paleoanthropologist, the other a president of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The former believes that the system of special naming, which has been around and relied upon for almost 300 years, must be destroyed because of offensive names (including Hitler, Gypsy, the usual suspects).

In a sense, I’ll put my own Cancellation hat on here and say, hypocritically, that Mirjana Roksandic should never have been given tenure, much less the mouthpiece of one of the most respected publications in the world. Here we have an elegant system, that for hundreds of thousands of species on our planet has worked almost perfectly. A couple of trivial edge cases of malpractice cannot be enough to even think about altering such a thing.

I’m a stickler for well-defined systems that effectively cover the vast majority of their use cases. I find myself recalling the hullabaloo over the use of master as a git branch name a couple of years ago, which culminated in every single Application Lifecycle Management software pushing out new defaults for any fresh code repository. As the person who built nearly all our deployment automation around these conventions, I was fucking furious. I reverted the change in our organization and pre-emptively bowed up if any of my employees would complain. Thankfully, none did, probably because they didn’t want to rewrite everything. Nobody’s done a cost analysis of these pushed-down changes, but given software engineer salaries and what I’ve seen personally, it’s in 7-figure territory at the very least.

I’m not sure how cohesive this is, but I think one of the fundamental issues here is how disconnected the people who want changes to systems are from the costs of doing so. Ms. Roksandic doesn’t have to write the software to manage taxonomy or anything else. Doubtless, she’s working in some backwater excel spreadsheet and thinks adding an alias column is as hard as it gets.

I want systems to be discussed and improved upon over time, even if some of those are for silly social reasons, as long as the costs are remotely reasonable. Ideally, these are net-new ones instead of those that have worked well for centuries.

Does anyone in fields that use zoological nomenclature frequently have a comment as to the scale of this sentiment? Is my worry about the toe being in the door of another massively net-negative change to the overall chaos of the world unjustified?

unpaywalled: https://archive.ph/Z4uxN

The stakes here are renaming a few species with weird names, so ... seems unimportant tbh. Taxonomic names are regularly changed, often because species weren't related in the manner previously thought, so it wouldn't be that disruptive to do a few more. Obviously the motivation for doing so is very dumb, it accomplishes nothing and creates needless work, but it won't be destroying taxonomy or anything.

Taxonomic names are regularly changed, often because species weren't related in the manner previously thought, so it wouldn't be that disruptive to do a few more.

TBH I appreciate you saying this though. I was under the mistaken impression that there would be downstream effects, of mass renames. Perhaps there would be at the scale that would "satisfy" those who want to, but it makes sense that the system isn't totally fragile.

seems unimportant tbh.

If it's too unimportant to object to, it's too unimportant to insist upon.

No, not if the cost/benefit favors one side.

Yeah, that's why uncompromising fanatics always win.

If someone is making an objection, clearly they have their own calculations about what the costs and benefits are. One side or the other (or neither) may be right, but that can be decided on the merits, and dismissing the values of one side out-of-hand as invalid doesn't strike me as productive.

Or to put it another way, apply "just get over it" omnidirectionally or not at all.

They are saying

  1. Such changes would impact a small number of species

  2. Such changes are common

  3. Therefore, this doesn't matter that much.

They even agree that the motivation is "very dumb" and "creates needless work".

You simply rounded their answer to the nearest meme argument (X is unimportant, so why are you complaining) and responded with the appropriate meme response.

Sorry, but history has put me very much on guard against salami-slicing tactics.

"Oh, come on! They care about it so much, and you have no reason (we'll permit to you) to object! Just this one time, this one time give them everything they want."

But this is an iterated game. It's never just "this one time." A few "this one times" and suddenly Putin is trying to grab the entire rest of Ukraine and how could this have happened?

But there is a criterion that tells me when we're not hurtling down a slippery slope, though: some specific, sturdy catch somewhere before the bottom. A Schelling point that can be pointed to to say that the line of argument can be extended only there and not indefinitely. Is there one in this case? Probably. I can't envision any given one that's particularly clear, myself, so if there's something that seems clear to anybody else, I would much appreciate the clarification.

Taxonomic names are regularly changed, often because species weren't related in the manner previously thought

They are regularly changed because the previous names were wrong: placing a species in the wrong genus, grouping two species into one, and so forth. They are never changed because someone doesn't like the name.

There is a firm principle that scientific names can't be changed unless it's justified by new discoveries. Changing even one name will open the floodgates. You know it won't stop at Hitler. There are many other species named after bad people, and still more named after people wokeists would consider bad. It will lead to all sorts of squabbles, with no benefit whatsoever.

The Hitler beetle's name wasn't even changed after World War II. I think everyone agreed at that point that Hitler was bad; many had experienced his badness first-hand. But they stood by their principles, because they knew changing it would just make everything much more complicated.

You're not disagreeing with them... They even say

Obviously the motivation for doing so is very dumb, it accomplishes nothing and creates needless work

They are affirming that not only is the motivation dumb and it will create needless work, but that it will be abused and create conflict within the field of taxonomy. i.e. They are saying the consequences will be worse than what the OP is proposing.

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