site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   36219 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.

More information is out on Paul Pelosi's assailant.

Apparently he has a blog(there's a link to it in the article), and most of the blog appears heavily antisemitic and conspiratorial.

I had a quick skim through it, and I'm a bit suspicious of it. He has multiple posts per day going back at least 2 months. Every thumbnail was AI-generated, and the headlines and bi-lines of his posts had a bit of an AI-vibe to them, although I'll admit my opinion on that might be affected by the AI thumbnails.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of it.

Maybe the Basilisk finally got somebody.

(Caveat that I have not read the blog and don't intend to)

The obvious conspiratorial angle I can think of is that the 42 year old assailant was attacking an unarmed 82 year old man. How was that at all close? Reports say that when cops showed up, they saw both men with their hands on a hammer. Was the assailant suffering from muscular atrophy? A quick Google search shows the SFPD targets an 8-min response time. Let's say that police managed to get lucky and arrive on scene in 3. How were the two men still struggling over a hammer by that point?

I did see reports claiming the victim managed to call 911 while hiding in the bathroom. So then the question is why he ever came out of it, given there was no one else to defend at the home. Maybe the assailant breached the door with the hammer, which would suggest him to be healthy/strong enough to seriously injure the 82 year old. Which returns me again to the question, how could the two still be struggling over a hammer when the police arrived minutes later?

My guess is the story is simpler than many would like it to be--the assailant was very deeply disturbed, with just barely enough executive functioning to figure out the address of the Pelosis and get inside, but not enough to actually achieve his stated goal of harming the Speaker, or failing that, killing her husband.

Side note, the systemically robust solution to me seems to be to manufacture homes of VIPs to be resilient to home invaders. No door or window should be easily breachable with a hammer. That seems far more useful than all the pearl-clutching about toning down divisive political rhetoric.

anti-semiotic

Only in Berkeley would you find someone who hates Saussure that much.

Firefox apparently doesn't like anti-semetic, and I used auto-correct without double-checking.

It's definitely a sign of something.

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