site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32077 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 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.

24
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How is the gay escort rumour 'clear bullshit'? There is an absolute tonne of weirdness in this story, from the unnamed person who let police into the residence (what were they doing, what do they know), to the fact that they apparently found this 40-something weirdo still struggling with a man in his 80s when police arrived. How hard is it to beat up an 80 year old?

And how is it that random mentally ill people can get into expensive residences in San Francisco anyway? This couple is very, very rich, (even ignoring their political power) would they not have some kind of security mechanism sufficient to keep out weirdoes with hammers? All their security is mobile, guarding Nancy wherever she happens to be? This whole story doesn't make any sense - the most reasonable part is the Q stuff infecting somebody with a very low WIS stat. I could believe that. But everything else?

How do either of those supposed weirdnesses justify the 'gay escort' theory?

And how is it that random mentally ill people can get into expensive residences in San Francisco anyway

Haven't we done the "SF has a homeless criminal problem and the police won't do anything about it" thing to death?

If he was a gay escort it would explain how he got into the house.

I can't imagine being worth over a hundred million and not having sufficient security, in San Francisco of all places (where there are many homeless criminals) and not having sufficient security to keep out random weirdoes!

If he was a gay escort it would explain how he got into the house.

another explanation, much simpler and more likely, is that they have security (secret service) but they're more focused on nancy than husband, or that they had security and messed up this one.

Apparently there was security at the house. Maybe not as effective as my Rock That Keeps Tigers Awayâ„¢ but still existent.

The link refers to "the Capitol Police’s command center, which was monitoring the security camera feed from Pelosi’s home". The same Capitol Police in charge of security for the Capitol on January 6. I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Perhaps the Capitol should invest in one of those rocks you speak of.

It seems suspicious to me that security was there and didn’t notice a window getting broken.

The linked article says the "security" was someone remotely watching a camera feed:

Capitol Police are conducting a full review of the incident at Pelosi’s home and its protective services division and sharing updates with lawmakers, according to a GOP aide. The department is considering any short- or long-term changes to protocol that need to be made.

The review will also include the Capitol Police’s command center, which was monitoring the security camera feed from Pelosi’s home, according to a person familiar.

Unclear where the camera (cameras? or just one) were pointed. I think the story is that the attacker broke a window in a side/back door, so maybe there was no camera pointing at it? But also, security cameras don't help a lot in this kind of situation; I guess they could have called the police a little sooner? I would think home security cameras are mostly useful for identifying intruders when the residents aren't home.

The unnamed person has been retracted from the initial coverage - DePape was not beating up Pelosi until the police arrived and it sounded like literally until they opened the door - this is all in the official report here:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1548106/download

The incident is still quite weird and I'm not sure how much to hold language that convinces someone who is several standard deviations outside healthy and well-adjusted against the people speaking it, but just pushing back on a few things that seem to be misinformation.

Yes, it would be insane if the house of the Speaker of the House didn't have 24-hour security else the Chinese could plant listening devices and terrorists bombs in the Speaker's home.

I don't think the Chinese would bother with anything like that when they can just get party cadre members hired by the Pelosis' business and likely have better access to their affairs than they do themselves.

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