site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   32199 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 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.

I wouldn't read too much CW into this. Most sports leagues have uniform rules that result in penalties if they're ignored. The NFL was notorious for a while for fining players for writing messages on their cleats or even wearing unauthorized hats at press conferences. And very little of this was political; Alex Smith got fined for wearing a San Francisco Giants hat. While the NFL probably went too far, it's understandable that sports leagues want to regulate how players dress. They're called uniforms for a reason, and it's easy to see how lax enforcement could lead to ridiculous outcomes where every player is wearing some kind of flair.

I didn’t realize it at first, but this went beyond fines to yellow cards. That makes it strictly more aggressive than anything the NFL has done for uniform violations. Allegedly, it’s not what the clubs expected, either:

Wales said the countries involved had been prepared to pay fines that would normally apply to breaches of kit regulations, but sporting sanctions had been a step too far.

Qatar probably insisted on it. If I were in their shoes I too would adopt a zero tolerance policy due to "Offer an inch, they take a mile" propensity of the left.

In football there is leeway on dress.

Yes, you can't paint anything you like or take off your shirt without sanction but many countries have had modified shirts and uniforms with special logos for certain events. In fact: another recent culture war dustup was a Muslim player refusing to wear a modified, LGBT-friendly shirt in France.

FIFA is almost certainly doing this to mollify Qatar, not some principled opposition to allowing the slippery slope via a "OneLove" armband that they could have simply said no one could wear months ago.

EDIT: Case in point: Belgium forced to change away kit for World Cup after Fifa demand one word ["Love"] is removed from their shirt. These kit designs are decided way in advance. If FIFA had a problem with it for violating strict messaging guidelines, why did it go this far? Why wait till now to do something?

I don't mind the NFL exerting control over player uniforms, but found it irksome they extended that control to player dress during post game press conferences. I always liked how far Chad 'OchoCinco' Johnson went to troll them about the uniform rules (he legally changed his name to be able to put his spanish numerals on his jersey after getting fined for a related joke). One of the better trolls in the NFL.

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