site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   36174 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 Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, in the wake of Elon Musk's bid for Twitter being back on and him apparently suggesting layoffs of up to 75%, Twitter employees have released an open letter begging demanding:

We demand of current and future leadership:

  • Respect: We demand leadership to respect the platform and the workers who maintain it by committing to preserving the current headcount.
  • Safety: We demand that leadership does not discriminate against workers on the basis of their race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or political beliefs. We also demand safety for workers on visas, who will be forced to leave the country they work in if they are laid off.
  • Protection: We demand Elon Musk explicitly commit to preserve our benefits, those both listed in the merger agreement and not (e.g. remote work). We demand leadership to establish and ensure fair severance policies for all workers before and after any change in ownership.
  • Dignity: We demand transparent, prompt and thoughtful communication around our working conditions. We demand to be treated with dignity, and to not be treated as mere pawns in a game played by billionaires.

I mean, obviously there's a lot of schadenfreude to be had by conservatives and anti-wokes over demands that political beliefs be respected.

Personally, as someone who has watched the Left begin to sound like libertarians on corporate power ("Facebook is a private company) when it comes to social media sites (which I view as a purely self-serving move) I find it hard to be sympathetic. Since nobody has any principled solution to billionaires owning the public square and they should deal with the consequences if things don't always swim left.

Even on the matters that aren't that "culture warrey" and align with my beliefs (e.g. good worker protections) I see no reason to care since their argument seems to be that they're important enough to have a right to an outsized say and protection (since Twitter is apparently being used in important places like the Ukraine war). You see similar things during the Chappelle Netflix or Peterson-publisher kerfuffle where relatively well-off employees think they have right to dictate the direction of the company, a right they don't seem to fight for for any other set of employees.

This is the game. I think these people are confused: you're the imperial functionaries, not the Emperor. Sometimes the tune changes and you have to dance.

My perspective is probably economically naive, but I think, if Elon actually wants to change the direction of Twitter, a purge is a good idea - perhaps in the vein of Basecamp: the culture is getting less partisan, we're not going to cater to your activism, accept it or take severance. A lot of the more "woke" employees are never going to reconcile themselves and will in fact attempt to be internal saboteurs who are waiting for their chance to cause a mess and potentially get a payday (like Netflix getting sued by the anti-Chappelle protestors).

Uproot it and start again, setting good expectations for the company culture.

I mean, obviously there's a lot of schadenfreude to be had by conservatives and anti-wokes over demands that political beliefs be respected.

"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences! If you don't like it, get your own platform!" Musk purchases Twitter. "...please don't punish us for our political speech."

Sorry, had to get my daily dose of schadenfreude.

For what it's worth, principled commitment to freedom of speech (of the thick, not thin, variety) has never really helped anyone. Those with power do as they will, and those without complain about violations of rights and freedoms. Those Twitter employees on the chopping block would be in no better a place even if they had advocated for a genuinely free platform.

I've yet to see someone hold up the 'aggressive' version of free speech principles. i.e. "I will support unlimited free speech by every person except those who would suggest censoring others. Those people we censor."

That is, a version of free speech absolutism that nonetheless supports censoring those who advocate censorship of others.

"The law has no mercy..."

That is just silly wordgames. A life for life, and it stops there; the execution itself engenders no guilt.

The same argument applies to any state punishment, be it fines ("theft"), death penalty ("murder"), or prison ("kidnapping").

But this ignores the two other possibilities of Münchhausen trilemma: uncaused cause, which would be the state monopoly on violence and circular argument, where the line of guillotines eventually loops back on itself and the first murderer releases the blade that decapitates the last executioner.

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