site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35510 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.

I understand that you don’t endorse self-ID; I interpreted you as saying all along that you thought there wasn’t much of a point in focusing on the trans issue because it doesn’t have an impact on crime policy, whereas it is directly important to incarceration policy, as here:

Sound public policy about prison housing might require trans activism to be vanquished, but sound public policy about crime does not, unless possibly transwomen are actually the source of a lot of crime

And

No, my comment was meant to indicate that there are other issues at play other than what gains and losses might accrue to trans people. I.e.: our ability to get closer to understanding the causes of crime, which is compromised if we intentionally miscategorize those who commit crimes.

And more, I think.

Whereas I would argue that sound public policy about crime relies on a heuristic that people can lie about gender identity (and thus e.g. inflate statistics re:trans women being sex offenders, for instance) in informing crime rates, and thus rejecting the trans activist idea of self-ID. In particular, yes our ability to get closer to understanding the causes of crimes is compromised if we intentionally miscategorise criminals, but trans activist self-ID policy requires us to miscategorise criminals or violate its precepts.

Which sounds awfully like “sound public policy [regarding crime] does in fact require trans activism to be vanquished”, because under trans activist policy we can’t have a sane conversation about it, even if it isn’t as directly related as the incarceration issue.

"Now you have to accept the bad actors as members of your own group. You made this bed, now you have to lie in it," which is an endorsement of self-ID (well, not an endorsement of self-ID, but rather an insistence on using it in this instance) even though it hinders "formulat[ing] sensible policy regarding crime." Worse yet, he seems to be motivated solely by a desire to "own" trans activists (because I can't think of an alternative explanation for the "you made your bed" statement, esp given his general hostility to self-ID.

Here I think we interpret this differently. I thought it was clear that it meant “Progressive-pushed policy has created predictable and predicted incentives for bad actors. Now progressives should own this and admit that they did an oopsie, and that the bad actors were in fact supported and empowered by them (and that they are conceived to be a progressive in-group), and reap the related societal censure from it.”

Or something to that effect.

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