site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   33681 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

We could argue about what counts as an observation (have I ever really seen my kids, or have I only seen the photons bouncing off them?), but we've observed something that looks dark and acts like matter, regardless of how precisely we can identify it in the future. There are other theories that try to explain galactic rotation curves (the original motivation for theorizing "dark matter") with e.g. changes to how gravity works at long ranges, but they have a much harder time explaining the Bullet Cluster.

Sure - I mean, my understanding is that there are a few different theories that claim to explain it. The details are inside baseball to me, but it seems to me that oftentimes ambiguous evidence like this can cut more than one way (more on that in a second).

The examples get cooler than the Bullet Cluster.

My position here, to be clear, is that people should try to match theories to observations. If you observe something miraculous, you should try to formulate a theory to explain it. "We made an observational error" should be considered (and of course as you know scientists do sometimes predict cool things like Neptune and sometimes they goof up and observe faster-than-light particles that aren't real). What makes me cranky is excluding observations because they don't fit to theories (which for all the dunking I do on DARK MATTER is what scientists would be doing if they didn't invent something like it).

Could miracles ever work the same way? You've learned about the Miracle of Calanda now; perhaps we could convince people to start praying for amputees, and we'd see claims of miraculous limb regrowth rise to match claims of e.g. miraculous cancer remission? Would you expect that to work, and start trying, and report back to us after you see it start working? I'd be ecstatic to be proven wrong like that.

Well, first off thank you for the interested response.

Secondly, let's think through this a bit. If I logged in here and reported that I had successfully regenerated a limb through prayer, would you believe me? You can investigate the Miracle of Calanda for yourself, whatever you can say about it it does seem to be better documented than "Shrike, anonymous Motte user, reports spontaneous leg regrowth." Even if I did provide documentation, would you find it easier to believe in a miracle or in a freak of nature?

If you would find it easier to believe in a miracle, then why is the Miracle of Calandra not enough for you? Is there a specific methodological flaw in the reporting that you have an issue with (which, who knows, if I looked into it I might have as well, I am very open-minded to that possibility) or do you just think that sometimes people are dumb and fooled? In which case why would I providing convincing documentation of a miracle persuade you?

Thirdly, to answer your question directly - I would expect for it to be possible to work. In my religious tradition (and indeed in most religious traditions, I imagine) God does not necessarily act as believers would wish 100% of the time. (There's an interesting question of whether or not it would be sacrilegious in some way to checks notes ask God for a miracle to win an online argument, hahahaha!)

(If your question is "why don't you run an RCT or something" then sadly the answer is that I am in the wrong field. If GPT makes billionaires of us all then I wouldn't mind joining a Motte Joint Task Force On The Investigation Of Miracles though!)

Finally- if I was to test it scientifically (that is, attempt to replicate a miracle) I would probably have to follow the procedure alleged in the miracle (which as a non-Catholic and also as a person with both of my legs, I would frankly be loathe to do).

With all this being said, if I do encounter something extraordinary* that seems to be the direct result of prayer I will certainly consider reporting it to the Motte.

*To be entirely honest I have, several times, had various events that might be described as "answers to prayer" or "synchronicity," but I do not think that people who have not experienced them will find them particularly compelling. In my own personal experience it is extremely easy to write things like that off as "happenstance" regardless of how unlikely they are, and none of my personal stories are particularly startling.

I'd be ecstatic to be proven wrong like that.

If this is actually true, I (and I am being quite serious about this) would recommend that you consider taking up prayer, understanding that God is not a magic wand. For the reasons I laid out above, I think that you would find an event that happened to you much more persuasive than an event that happened to me.

Now, maybe I misconstrued or misunderstood you, there. Happy for clarification.

With all this being said, if I do encounter something extraordinary* that seems to be the direct result of prayer I will certainly consider reporting it to the Motte.

Please also report extraordinary events that did not seem to be the direct result of prayers.

Because that's the thing about miracles, even if I watched you regrow a limb before my own eyes and you told me God personally spoke to you and told you it was because you prayed for it, it would move my needle on spontaneous limb regrowth a lot, but not so much on God. I've heard of many, many people praying and receiving fuck all.

Right! If you're really determined not to believe, there's really no evidence that will change your mind.

Except perhaps a personal encounter (which is what often moves the needle on people's belief, be it UFOs, or religion, or what have you).

And of course those personal encounters are considered the least reliable form of proof. So the wheel turns!

I do not think I am determined not to believe. I think there is simply more evidence and more reliable evidence, on the level of "gravity can kill you", in favor of a world that has no God.

I do think I am somewhat determined to not be faithful, even (especially?) if I was convinced by some arrangement of miracles that (a) God existed.

Just setting aside a lot of potential objections, it seems to me that what you describe is at best evidence against a God that shares your personal values.

How so? It seems to work pretty well against a wide variety of Gods that purportedly intervene in notable and noticeable ways into human life.

Perhaps I misunderstood you – "gravity can kill you" strikes me as a moral objection or argument, not one based in material evidence.

Strange to assume that I'd say "gravity can kill you" implying that I approve of it, but no, I meant that it is capable of killing you.

I actually assumed you disapproved of it – but yes I don't see how gravity's being able to kill you really has any evidentiary value.

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