site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32889 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 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.

23
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think there's also, as usual, a case of diminishing returns here. If you're inactive, and you start exercising regularly and eating healthily, I don't doubt that's good for mental health (as well as physical health obviously). But once you pass the point of 'reasonably fit and healthy' I find it hard to believe gym-going is does anything more for you mentally than any other hobby.

I think there are more potential gains than you imply. I can run a 7.5 minute mile and I feel pretty good. Running a 6 minute mile would probably make me feel even better, psychologically of course for achieving a goal, but also just in my daily fitness. It won't be as huge as the difference between 9 minutes and 7.5 minutes, but it will certainly be abig improvement.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that returns do diminish, but never to the point where shaving another minute off my mile would equivalent to finally painting the entire map in Europa Universalis while playing as the Knights of Saint John. The fitness gains would still provide way more benefit.

Yeah, certainly the fitness gains will keep increasing, but my point is that beyond a certain level fitness isn't necessarily making you that much 'healthier', at that point the goals are fairly arbitrary. Which is fine, even good, but no different to the goal of completing a good stamp collection or finishing restoring an old car.

I understand. The point I perhaps failed to make is that the point of diminishing returns for exercise is quite high IMO, especially relative to the amount of effort people put into keeping fit. Put another way, very very few people are at the point where they wouldn't benefit from getting fitter, including people who exercise regularly. I think you hit "completing a stamp collection" levels of marginal return when you're, say, trying to shave 5% off your half marathon time or whatever (probably before then, but I'm just trying to illustrate the point).

Edit: I reread my post and I see that I didn't acknowledge that there is eventually a point of diminishing returns. Oops. I agree with you on that point.

Sure, I mostly agree with that. Though I think that's mostly a reflection of how unhealthy America/Britain etc. is as a society

Have you tried deleting Facebook and getting a lawyer?

?

The universal meme advice for men's problems is "delete Facebook, hit the gym, lawyer up".

Just a dumb joke, don’t mind me

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