site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35484 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 Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This theory predicts that young people are well to the right of senior citizens.

Not necessarily. As I said, the determining factor is one's self-perceived ability to protect oneself from harm, which can obviously be radically skew of one's actual ability. I think the average 19-year-old man is actually able to protect himself from harm far better than the average 75-year-old man, but this says nothing about their relative self-perceived ability to do so. Considering that Zoomers report vastly elevated rates of mental distress than older generations, there's no contradiction in the idea of a fit and healthy 19-year-old man who believes, contrary to all objective evidence, that he is helpless to protect himself from harm. What you end up with is a virgin vs. chad meme, with a fit and healthy 19-year-old man who is scared of his own shadow*, in stark contrast to a 75-year-old man with a host of comorbidities who refuses to stop smoking or wear a seatbelt.

*not a strawman, I personally know several people meeting this description or something approximating it

Is this falsifiable? How would you check for so-called "perceived ability"? Ask them how many fights they've been in?

Ask someone a series of questions, like "how worried are you about being attacked by a stranger?" or "if you were attacked by a stranger, do you think you would be able to defend yourself?" You could pair this subjective polling with objective data like "how many guns do you own?" or "do you have a black belt in karate?"

My half-baked hypothesis is that, all other things being equal, people who don't own any guns, don't practise martial arts, don't think they would be able to defend themselves if they were attacked by a stranger etc. will be more likely to support authoritarian policies than the converse.

As you get older, you become very aware of your own growing fragility.

Which does not automatically imply that the (accurately) self-perceived fragility of an older person is necessarily greater than the inaccurately self-perceived fragility of a younger person.

This is actually the case in Sweden now, except the reasoning goes the opposite direction.

There was an expectation of a "generation Greta" effect but instead the opposite happened. The leading preliminary explanation is that young people being victims of and knowing victims of violent and organised crime, and having limited ways to protect themselves go to "the right". Older people meanwhile are largely insulated from the crime and grew up during a safer time.

It'll be interesting to see what more extensive analysis will say.

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