site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   32875 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 7, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You’ve shown reasons Musk probably shouldn’t be attacked on those specific grounds. Great. I don’t think that’s the main objection to his control.

If Twitter users think that Musk will turn Twitter into a cesspit, they should like to avoid such an outcome. It just so happens that their idea of a cesspit covers various right-wing opinions.

I think it’s important to skip the elaborate castles of blame. You don’t need to talk about BLM to tar Twitter as partisan. The main objection to free speech is that people will say things that suck, and telling opponents that they already suck is unlikely to be convincing.

Well, I guess I really think the main objection in this case is a reflexive distaste for billionaires, of which Elon is perhaps the most visible. Whether this is survival instinct, envy, or class consciousness? Who can say?

The main objection to free speech is that people will say things that suck, and telling opponents that they already suck is unlikely to be convincing.

This is not the main objection. The main objection to free speech is that people aren't responsible with it. They let biases affect their judgments, or worse choose to deliberately stoke partisan emotions, and this counteracts efforts at maintaining a good/better society.

I would be willing to bet that most social media users don’t care about that. People get upset by things they don’t like. Sometimes those are downstream of social preferences, sometimes they’re more aesthetic.

Imagine that Musk starts posting dick pics on Twitter. He encourages others to do the same and removes all moderation of such pictures. The NSFW tag no longer is partitioned off from trending.

People would flip out not because of partisanship or bias, but because they didn’t sign up for this. There would follow plenty of (accurate) criticism for how it damages society—but the knee jerk response is a complaint at personally getting something one doesn’t want.

Now replace dicks with racial slurs. Or with anti-trans posts, or with calls for deportation. Change the scale, but the underlying response remains: we don’t want this here.

Now replace dicks with racial slurs. Or with anti-trans posts, or with calls for deportation. Change the scale, but the underlying response remains: we don’t want this here.

Musk has explicitly and repeatedly stated that if you don't want to see racial slurs or dicks, you will be able to set the filters to match your preferences. Much like email.

The actual issue is quite clearly controlling whether other people get to read what they want, e.g. true stories by the NY Post about Hunter Biden.

I think it’s important to skip the elaborate castles of blame. You don’t need to talk about BLM to tar Twitter as partisan. The main objection to free speech is that people will say things that suck, and telling opponents that they already suck is unlikely to be convincing.

But there is a reason this isn't the argument put forward. Because it's a really terrible argument unsupportable under a liberal framework, which the critics aren't quite ready to abandon.

I really don't think it's the billionaire thing. Maybe that is an element to it but the people who hate him would hate him if he were broke. He was especially now that he's signaling rightward sympathies. Soros buying Twitter and banning most right wing opinions would be hailed as a victory for progress.

Well, I guess I really think the main objection in this case is a reflexive distaste for billionaires, of which Elon is perhaps the most visible. Whether this is survival instinct, envy, or class consciousness? Who can say?

I think there has to be more than that, since it's not like Twitter wasn't owned by a billionaire before Elon. If it was truly reflexive distaste for billionaires, it would be odd for it to be triggered just now. Elon is perhaps the most visible billionaire, but I think the distaste directed his way before the Twitter deal, which seems to be the main source of the distaste towards the deal, wasn't primarily because of him being a billionaire that was the most visible. Rather, I think him being the most visible billionaire is in a large part due to the distaste he garners from people for his awkward public appearances and statements where he shows off his all-too-techbro/classical liberal stylings.

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