site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35412 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 New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

For what it’s worth, I expect you and I can or could still have plenty of good conversations—but when people tell me they don’t want to share a society with me, I take seriously the need to build alternate spaces alongside those who do.

Is the ability to have a conversation based on having something to talk about, or not having something you can't talk about?

People talk about anger as though it's a force of nature, utterly irresistible, but our actions are chosen. Still, what happens when the only workable, non-disastrous option you can work with is to close your mouth, turn around and leave?

I regret a number of things I've written in these threads. It might seem stupid, but I very much regret the time I called you blue tribe when you'd previously made it clear your internal identity is red. I'd straight-up forgotten, and it was clear that it came across as a personal attack, and I wanted to apologize but it seemed wrong somehow, like I was trying to justify it. For what little it's worth, I'm sorry for that and for any other needless offense I've offered, intentionally or not.

I think peace requires some level of agreement on which losses get redressed, and which get written off. So what happens when one side says "write it off", and the other side doesn't? What happens when the other side says "redress it", and the first refuses? What's there to do, but fight over it until everyone who remembers why is dead and gone? And who would that benefit?

You and I have a fundamental difference of values. Your right and wrong are not mine, mine are not yours. I don't think either of us is under the impression that the other is missing crucial information. The disagreement is not tangential or peripheral, and it sure doesn't seem reconcilable. You don't like being told that I don't want to have to vote with you, but I don't think it's reasonable for me to vote for my own survival. I don't like being told that an innocent getting their head stomped on by a mob is a regrettably preferable outcome, but you don't want to see lesser violence spiraling inexorably into greater violence, into death, maybe even into many, many deaths. Or maybe I totally misunderstand. If so, it's a misunderstanding that appears immune to correction, because that was charitable to the point of dishonesty from where I sit. Dialing it down that far has required three four passes, and the strangling sensation of swallowing mouthfuls of necessary truth, the lies by omission I keep choosing that curdle any joy of discourse.

You mentioned in one of those past conversations that you took the things people were saying really personally. On this point, you should rest secure in the knowledge that I sympathize to a profound degree. The arguments you made, I read them then and now as applied to me, to my wife, to my family and friends. The things that happened, the arguments made not in the abstract, but while watching it happen, live and in color... The knowledge generated is indelible. There is before, and there is after. I get the impression that it's the same for you. I haven't actually changed my views much, and I get the impression that it's the same for you. So... There it is.

I hope your alternate space goes well, for what it's worth, and if you ever want to come back here I'll make it a point to stay out of your way unless you'd explicitly prefer otherwise.

Last word on this one's yours if you want it, sir. Scout's honor.

I realized I never replied to this—I meant to, but I mean to do a lot of things these days. I appreciate your expression of regrets and your work to keep things dialed down; though I continue to feel misapprehended, I won't attempt to further bridge a gap in understanding that, as you say, appears unbridgeable. I see no reason for you to stay out of my way; that we have fundamental disagreements does not mean I see no value in our chats.

All the best.

I realized I never replied to this—I meant to, but I mean to do a lot of things these days.

Ain't that the way?

thanks for the kind words, and hey, if you're around, I'll be around too.

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