site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35427 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 New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's not the ideological staying power I question, it's that utopian visions of post-political, universal cooperation for personal salvation are a false god. It distracts from the real concerns of the here and now, the political, and our only actual hope for salvation: our children.

Ilforte is upset Anatoly Karlin, who shares his secular religion (I do not mean that as an insult, the creation of a secular religion is the greatest challenge of our time and I also think AI will have a place in that endeavor) is choosing Putin over cosmism. But what is Ilforte more upset about? Is he upset that Karlin is choosing Russian nationalism over Cosmism in general? Or is it only because the cause itself is lost and counter-productive to Russian nationalism?

Let's say that Putin were actually an extremely good leader for the Russian people and played his cards perfectly, and Russia stood to imminently gain from this conflict. If the strategic approach to realizing those gains for the Russian nation came into conflict with Ilforte's cosmist values, which would he pick? I know which Karlin would pick.

This can be taken to the extreme. You can ask a Christian: "Would you be OK with 100% of Europe being replaced by Africans, if all of the Africans were Christians?" The Karlin would say that this is not acceptable, but the good Christian who doesn't place nationalism before his religion would be more likely to consider this a worthy tradeoff. That's due to the staying power of the ideology. True. But it's not a good thing.

our only actual hope for salvation: our children.

I for one am expecting a technological singularity in a few years.

Is he upset that Karlin is choosing Russian nationalism over Cosmism in general? Or is it only because the cause itself is lost and counter-productive to Russian nationalism?

I think it's a sentiment of "damn it, you had it! you had the right view!"

"Would you be OK with 100% of Europe being replaced by Africans, if all of the Africans were Christians?"

Are Christians Christianity-maximizers? I'm genuinely not sure the religion leads to that conclusion.

I for one am expecting a technological singularity in a few years.

Are you willing to bet money on it? I could use some money.

The part of my brain that handles finances is not on speaking terms with the one that handles forecasts.

Besides, I should always bet against the singularity. No way to lose, really.

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