site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   36212 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 24, 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.

20
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If we are making facile derogatory comparisons, this is also a commonality between free-market capitalists and cannibals, who both exaggerate the individual's capacity to enter contracts in their own interest.

You could even go a bit further and talk about the aspect common to pedophiles (of the subset that does not particularly care for consent) and anti-trans activists, who both believe in the parents' absolute authority to make decisions about the child's sexual development. Statistics are circulating that something like a third of child sexual abuse cases are perpetrated by parents or close relatives, and I'd imagine that the vast majority of the Eastern European suggestive underage model pictures that flooded the *chans back in the days were created with the support of the parents. Surely only someone who is anti-family would presume to interfere with the parents' judgement there!

What is the ratio of Cannibals to trans activists in our society? and that is without the disproportionate impact that trans activists have when they introduce or modify laws. I'm unaware of cannibals trying to pass laws related to their proclivities.

Give it time. I hadn't heard of would-be eunuchs trying to pass policy related to their proclivities either until last month.

The MAJOR roadblock to anything cannibal related is that it requires eating someone or parts of someone.

Well, eunuchs have some spare parts...

yeah, but wouldn't cannis just get tired of eating dick all day?

In the simile, the cannibals map to the pedophiles, not the trans activists.

The ratio of interest would be cannibals-to-capitalists. Like pedophiles, the former are thankfully rare.

Though a complete lack of cannibalism-enshrining laws, coupled with the existence of any cannibals, does imply they are underrepresented.

Like pedophiles, the former are thankfully rare.

I think pedophilia is quite a bit more common than cannibalism, unless you start counting things like communion or chewing ones nails as cannibalism. For instance, the BBC quotes an estimated prevalence at 1% of the adult male population.

(to /u/4bpp too) Problem being that unlike the lack of relationship between cannibals and capitalists, the trans activists are actively promoting rules, regulations and concepts that would benefit pedophiles in their pursuits (minors capable of consent, keeping secrets from your parents, etc.), which is why I'm interested in the ratio of the problematic populations as Capitalist don't advance the canni agenda but transactivists indirectly (and intentional or unintentionally) do so.

As a note, I don't think it was appropriate that Meiwes was convicted. With the caveat that Bernd Jürgen Armando Brandes was of sound mind during the episode (which I very much doubt) but isn't mentioned in the Wiki article one way or another.

I consider the capacity to enter contracts with another party as a fundamental part of liberty and individualism (social contract as one example), not something exclusive to capitalism.

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