site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   36180 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 Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Of course, it's a perfectly valid meta-level take... assuming it rests on some substance, such as there having been some earlier interaction when sources one can reasonably deem high-quality had been presented; and that's a big assumption which does not match my recollection of this discourse. That said –

you can find the link yourself, thank you kindly, and if you can't then this goes back to competence rather than faith

My recollection is probably retarded anyway.

Not that specific link, but for some of what was being referenced to in the thread chain were same-day postings by

motteposting

https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/nowgdg/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_may_31_2021/h02is5b/

anti-dan had some relevant sources

https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/nowgdg/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_may_31_2021/h04dnh3/

There are some other posters there who are referring to then-contemporary news or events.

Further, that was a post chain that started from a position of explicitly referring to multiple prior exchanges. Reminder that this was 31May thread, so about 5 and 1/2 months after 6Jan, with nearly a third of a year of information degredation on the reporting contemporary to 6Jan itself, and over half a year since the election, with even more about the reporting (and prior culture war threads) about that.

And since navigating that chain is a nightmare, but since I may apparently need it in the future, the root-thread- including higher-level exchanges before what ymeskhout likes to link to but which cover the lead-up that was summarized- is here

https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/nowgdg/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_may_31_2021/h025iak/

Thanks to you and @Dean both for lessons in Advanced English.

My loquaciousness in english is proportional to my state of mind.

Sure. Stop lying.

Stop lying about other people's positions are when they give it to you. Stop lying about people having never given you other arguments in the past. Stop lying that you haven't been provided insight into the specific concerns.

For reference, the above is what you asked me to stop doing.

For posterity's sake, I already responded (multiple instances and down thread) to each comment you are linking to in your post. It's refreshing to see you link to actual examples rather than speak in vagueries.

  1. I looked through and I could not identify any false statements I've made about other people's positions, so that part is taken care of. Anyone who disagrees with this assertion is welcome to demonstrate otherwise by pointing with some specificity.

  2. I've never made the claim that people have not given me arguments in the past, and that would be an especially silly to say given that you're linking to a thread where...I respond to people's arguments. So that part is also taken care of.

  3. Ditto with me claiming to not being provided with insight into specific concerns, as the thread shows otherwise. The one aspect I'd agree with is that I don't believe I've gotten a reasonable attempt to answer some variant of this question: "We still come back to the same question. Why are these supposed blockbuster claims ignored by every level of the institutions this country has built specifically to ferret this out?"

Overall, this is good news! You've had some concerns about me lying, and those concerns appear to be misplaced, so maybe we can be friends now. Of course, I suspect you will remain perennially angry with me unless I adopt wholesale whatever preferred conclusions you have about the topic. That has been my operating theory for a long time. If that's the case, I think that's really silly and there's nothing else to discuss. Please just admit it and save us both the time.

But! If my suspicion is terribly misplaced, I will forever maintain an open invitation for you to describe (in precise detail) what exactly I can do to change your opinion of me. In this (very long) thread from Aug '21, I invited @motteposting to outline what evidence and arguments I should consider. Who knows if they found my attempts satisfactory, but anyone can click and decide for themselves how diligent my efforts are, and whether or not I operate on good faith. I'm not trying to hide the ball here.

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