site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   31088 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.

nor is it particularly controversial in these spaces that this kind of speech is dangerous

No. I don't want to enforce consensus, so I'll just say that I think what's not controversial in these spaces is that this kind of speech is treated completely differently by the "trust and safety enforcement" blob. People are upset about the blatantly who/whom censorship, not that Arthur Chu and Tim Wise are allowed to speak.

You could see what PmMeClassicMemes has to say about "harmful speech" targeting people he doesn't like, but after he flamed out of the motte calling everyone Nazis, his Reddit account finally got suspended for saying the quiet part a bit too loud too many times.

So regardless of what you think people here believe, it doesn't appear obvious that he does.

You could see what PmMeClassicMemes has to say about "harmful speech" targeting people he doesn't like, but after he flamed out of the motte calling everyone Nazis, his Reddit account finally got suspended for saying the quiet part a bit too loud too many times.

We still have a rule about leaving the rest of the Internet at the door, and we've talked before about your habit of digging up links to every past grievance while arguing with people. ( @gattsuru is doing it too, above, but at least he's kind of addressing past statements relevant to current ones. You're just going "Neener neener, you got suspended on reddit.")

Do not do this.

This is silly. Not bringing unrelated drama from other places is not the same thing as pretending people don't have a track record on an argument they brought up.

This is silly. Not bringing unrelated drama from other places is not the same thing as pretending people don't have a track record on an argument they brought up.

You don't have to pretend you don't remember what people have said in the past, when it's relevant to the discussion. If you can link to someone previously contradicting something they are saying now, "Hey, how do you reconcile these statements?" is valid.

Dragging old grudges into every exchange is not.

Gattsuru did a much better job, as always. My point was a simpler one: that the guy who got banned from reddit for calling people subhuman is probably not treating his argument about suppressing "harmful speech" as a universal principle, just a club to hit (subhuman) speakers he doesn't like.

I'll delete it if you'd like. This entire thread is just the same people relitigating and redeploying the same tactics as the last ten, and I shouldn't have even engaged.

No, my reddit account was suspended because I called someone sub-human in an argument on a finance subreddit.

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