site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   30474 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.

For the Dennis skit, he is relying on the woman modelling his behavior given the vulnerable position she is in. He won't do anything if she says no, but he understands that she doesn't know that and so counts on that to change her behavior. It's hard to prove as rape but it is certainly manipulative.

Now imagine Mac as FiveHourMarathon mentions below does exactly the same things as Dennis but cluelessly. Is he innocent of rape or attempting to manipulate? Absolutely. But should he have known of the implication and therefore taken steps to avoid putting the woman in that position? Maybe. It depends on whether a reasonable person should.

I think most men know that if you are sharing an empty subway station late at night with a woman, and you are the only two there, that walking up and standing right behind her, even innocently is likely to make her nervous. If you do it anyway, you're not breaking the law, you shouldn't be arrested, but you are probably being a bit of an asshole.

Learning the social conventions and being cognizant of them is a duty of members of society. For the obvious ones, failing to learn them certainly is blameworthy. It's pretty much the most important thing to learn. They are the rules of the road for society. Just as I shouldn't drive without learning the rules, and if I hit someone because I blow through a Stop sign because I didn't know what it means it is still on me.

Just as I shouldn't drive without learning the rules, and if I hit someone because I blow through a Stop sign because I didn't know what it means it is still on me.

That's a terrible analogy. The equivalent to the current situation would be if a pedestrian saw someone driving and assumed that they were going to blow through a stop sign and hit them. So the pedestrian then ran into the street in the opposite direction to avoid the car, because they were terrified of getting hit, and then they subsequently got hit by another car, or something.

And then blamed the first driver for driving like they were going to blow through the stop sign. And a big chunk of society then goes "yeah come on man, you should know better than to drive like you are going to blow through a stop sign!"

Also nobody actually explains how you avoid driving like you are going to blow through a stop sign - except for stuff like don't go too fast and start slowing down well before the stop sign - and when the first driver shows video proof he did that, that chunk of society offers sympathy but immediately forgets anything happened and insists the next driver who didn't blow through a stop sign is still somehow to blame.

deleted

I feel the same. Now that we have decent traffic and road data, and decent computers in cars I have always quietly wondered why we don't make cars that can only go the speed limit. Like if it's a 70 zone, the car tops out at 70 (adjusted for external factors like wind and slope and so on), with maybe a toggle (push the accelerator pedal sideways or something) to go faster for emergencies. I have to wonder it quietly though, because I mentioned it to my dad (a car enthusiast) once and he looked like the only thing stopping him from murdering me on the spot was our genes.

Sure there can be an over-reaction, no dispute there, but the driver still is (contra your point) at a minimum partially to blame if they do not make themselves cognizant of the rules of the road.

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