site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   30439 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
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Well, now wearing a "love" armband is against FIFA's rules.

I'm sorry, this just seems like a side-step: if someone were to do it, Germany would enforce its norms regardless of cosmopolitanism and "welcoming the world". And, if necessary, they would prevail on FIFA or some other body to help.

Well, now wearing a "love" armband is against FIFA's rules.

Did FIFA actually make it against the rules everywhere, or only for the World Cup in Qatar?

Your gotcha is not clever because you're well aware of the material differences. No one is claiming universal free speech is an entitlement to everyone everywhere or that countries can't impose their own laws on visitors. For example, Qatar also has rules against immodest dress and behavior, and I don't think anyone has argued that World Cup athletes should be allowed to walk around in bikinis or engage in public make-out sessions.

The principle I am arguing is that censorious regimes who want to enforce censorship even to the extent of forbidding athletes to wear political expressions they don't like during world events they are hosting should receive pushback, and the point I am making is that people defending the precious sovereignty of Qatar would normally be in favor of this pushback if the censorship didn't happen to be directed, this time, at their enemies.

It actually is against the rules in general. No political or religious speech on the uniforms. The “expected” sanction is apparently a fine, which Wales at least claimed to accept...but they drew the line at yellow cards. Not clear on whether that’s happened before or if this was one of those gentlemen’s agreements where FIFA reserved the right.

I agree with you that FIFA shouldn’t have escalated, especially not on behalf of the host.

Your gotcha is not clever because you're well aware of the material differences. No one is claiming universal free speech is an entitlement to everyone everywhere or that countries can't impose their own laws on visitors. For example, Qatar also has rules against immodest dress and behavior, and I don't think anyone has argued that World Cup athletes should be allowed to walk around in bikinis or engage in public make-out sessions.

What makes you think that Qataris find public immodesty bad but not public advocating for immodesty and immorality?

I mean, I agree that banning public immodesty feels more reasonable to me than banning "OneLove" but then, I swim in the same waters as you do and I don't think I can actually debunk that view without digging into axioms.

The principle I am arguing is that censorious regimes who want to enforce censorship even to the extent of forbidding athletes to wear political expressions they don't like during world events they are hosting should receive pushback, and the point I am making is that people defending the precious sovereignty of Qatar would normally be in favor of this pushback if the censorship didn't happen to be directed, this time, at their enemies.

I personally don't care if people "push back" at Qatar. Seems like there were plenty of avenues to do that more effectively (e.g. boycott) but nobody wanted to sacrifice. Well, here we are.

I've already stated that I have less problem with "Qatar is just wrong and we're right" so long as it's not couched in terms of welcoming the world or whatever.

I just don't think there's any actual universalizable standard of hospitality that can be pulled out from this* . It's just about who has power to determine what's considered "normal" and "reasonable".

* Well...except don't lie and salami-tactic your way into a World Cup. That is the most obvious sin here. It looks different if they announce all this on Day 1.

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