site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   31334 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Abortion is not domestic violence. Abortion is abortion. It is a unique issue with unique circumstances. So it will required a tailored set of policies to satisfy enough the stakeholders.

By the logic in your last sentence a lot of things not typically considered violence would fit the definition. Let's say you have surgery to destroy a tumor. The tumor is "something" and the surgery is a behavior that destroys it, is that violence? if you say yes your definition is broken, thats not how people use the term

You can make a good case that a bit of further nuance is needed, but here's a different example: an amputation. Cutting off Joe's foot would be very violent in some contexts (assault/maiming), but not generally considered violent in others (surgical removal of a gangrenous foot).

In the case of surgery, you could view it as "intending to hurt Joe's foot" or "intending to help Joe." In the case of maiming, there is clearly an intent to hurt, regardless of whether you're looking at Joe or Joe's foot.

But wouldn't that apply to abortion as well? The way I see it is if you count the fetus as an agent abortion is violence if you don't it's not so just calling abortion violence is assuming the conclusion. It's perhaps good rhetoric to rally people who are already pro life but it's not really an argument.

I think there are three problems here.

First, argument-by-analogy is a poor strategy generally, because analogies often work as an attempt to explain a position, but not as an attempt to persuade. If you're trying to persuade, the other person can always point out differences between the object case and the analogy (there are always differences, otherwise it's not an analogy), and then you're just arguing over whether a given difference is material.

Second, abortion is an unusually distinct object case. In most cases, you can say "this is really close to that, so we should treat them similarly" and objections concern whether you're jumping an important line in the process. But there aren't other object cases that are "pretty close" to abortion; when you're comparing it to a different thing, it's not hard to come up with multiple distinctions that might justify different treatment.

Third, the fundamental values involved in any given position in the abortion context are right there. There just aren't many inferential steps from values to policy for mistake theory to have room to maneuver; it's all conflict of values. At that point, it's down to persuasion that one set of values is preferable to another, and appeals to, say, emotion or aesthetics are perfectly valid argument types.

because analogies often work as an attempt to explain a position, but not as an attempt to persuade

Huh? How are these different? If you listen to political speeches or debates, both often attempts to persuade, there are tons of analogies.

Let's say I'm making an argument, and the other person doesn't understand what I'm getting at. Quite often, I could use some shared reference point as an analogy to make my line of argument more clear.

Alternatively, I'm making an argument, and the other person firmly disagrees. I could use an analogy, but it usually won't be persuasive, because analogies are never perfect 1:1 matches to the original subject, and the other person can just say, "oh, your analogy is different here and that's a material difference, so your analogy is flawed and not good support for your position."

it's rare for someone to disagree, hear an analogy, and respond, "oh, I was wrong the whole time, but now I agree." If the other person was on the fence beforehand, and not committed to disagreeing? Might work.

I could use an analogy, but it usually won't be persuasive, because analogies are never perfect 1:1 matches to the original subject,

But they don't have to be. They just have to be relevant in some way to be convincing.

Obviously the interlocutor can just say "but apples aren't LITERALLY orange, checkmate republikkan", but they can do that for any argument that isn't an analogy.

it's rare for someone to disagree, hear an analogy, and respond, "oh, I was wrong the whole time, but now I agree

Yeah, but that's also true for non-analogy arguments. Analogies and similar things are plenty useful in persuading people who firmly disagree, but it's generally hard to do so.

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