site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   34435 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 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.

12
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't see where in those quoted passages you're getting a message like "Shut up and drink the $2000 wine, its good because the label says it is." It's more like "I personally am one of those people who will shut up and drink the $2,000 wine and think it's good because the label says it is. Other people might feel differently, but that doesn't make my experience of enjoying the goodness of that wine any less real." So for Rings of Power, the analogous message to me would be something like:

I personally will ignore the actual show, its writing, CGI, etc deficiencies because it has the label (and the Objectively Correct Moral Message), and that label (and Message) has history and work behind it. This doesn't mean that anyone else has to see it this way, just that my view of this show's goodness is genuine and not fake.

FWIW, I'm one of those people whose palette thinks that the quality of wine caps out at around $20/bottle.

That's more charitable than OP, but I think the message of my comment is more like: "Some groups of people enjoy certain things. They're allowed to do that, just like I'm allowed to enjoy things that I like. If the reasons I like the things I like are unintelligible to you, that doesn't indicate that I'm wrong or my taste is fake or I'm a bad person or the producer of the things I like is a bad person; it merely indicates that we don't share tastes or possibly other affiliations that likely correlate with taste." If someone is experiencing joy at engaging with something, who is anyone else to tell them that they are not enjoying it? People are allowed to have fun. If you don't enjoy it, shrug and move on. De gustibus non est disputandum. Some people prefer the cucumber pickled.

There are definitely cases in which provenance of a piece of literature matters to me. I'm more interested to read Homer than I ever would be to read an AI pastiche of Homeric poetry, for a million reasons that if I have to explain them aren't worth the effort.

I haven't watched RoP, or The Hobbit movies, or any of the Marvel films; I'm fairly certain I wouldn't enjoy them from what I've heard of them so I avoid them. If other people enjoy them, that's their business, not mine; but it might indicate we won't get along. I can't imagine being stuck dating a Disney Adult. If someone else liked the Silmarillion, we'll probably get along.

@anti_dan if you're going to quote me unfavorably have the decency to tag me.

Yeah, how does one do that?

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