site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   30438 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.

Going to echo some other posters, and say it seems like you made the crucial mistake of trying to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. I've had ample experience on this with my wife - who, as one might imagine, trusts me and cares a great deal about what I have to say. With that big of a handicap, I should be able to convince her to not worry about things, right? Wrong. She doesn't get mad, she knows I'm just trying to help, but ultimately my attempts at reason don't help her. What she actually wants/needs from me is "I'm sorry you had to deal with that, that really sucks".

Now that's just my wife, but my experience has taught me that the same is true of people generally. If they are irrationally afraid of something, it simply does not matter what you tell them to try to get through. They didn't reason themselves into those emotions, and reason won't get them out. Or, in the cynical case of "they are acting like victims to achieve status", then your reasoning doesn't address what they actually think. Either way, it doesn't work.

Nothing you can do to fight human nature, sadly. Just remember for next time that reason isn't going to work there.

I think you're right that a lot of this is about the emotional response. Without having seen the original conversation, I can easily believe that this is less about "I am specifically scared that there will be a mass shooting next time I am in a gay bar" and more about "I have feelings about the possibility that there are people out there who might hate me enough to kill me, in conjuction with the existence of other people who wouldn't kill me but still hate me." If you address the former in a way that invalidates the latter, then you're going to ruffle feathers.

It might help to deliberately try to phrase the calm-down in a way that actively validates the surrounding messy feelings. As in, "If you are specifically worried about being shot, then I think you can be reassured that the chances of this actually happening to you are very low. But of course I also understand that there are other reasons why you might have really strong feelings about this."

mistake of trying to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into

As a general statement this just isn't true. I imagine everyone here has 'reasoned themselves out of' dozens of positions they've adopted because they were social/political convention. There are of course a ton of specific cases where 'convincing people' doesn't work, but it greatly depends on broader context, how you approach and talk, etc. I mean - otherwise, how could societal change happen at all?

As a general statement this just isn't true.

No, I think he's right. And it's not that people never change their mind based on reason, it's just that these instances are dwarfed by the amount of times they change their mind based on peer pressure, media, and having opinions banned (or a combination of all of these).

I think it is true as a general statement. In the battle between the subconscious and reason, reason is going to lose every single time. At best you can reason someone into changing their behavior, but you can't reason them into changing their mind. I certainly wish it weren't true, because I view it as a great human failing. But I think it is true nonetheless.

The subconscious will win out initially if entrenched (if not, it's just "huh, I learned something"), but it will remember the counterargument and be weakened in its conviction. Repeat a few times and you can change the subconscious mind. Adjusting with new information is just how humans learn.

However, I do believe that "You can't reason someone out of an emotion they didn't reason themselves into" is mostly* true, and "Scared of X" is an emotional response. You can potentially reason someone out of a position that incites emotion, but the emotion itself will remain. If I'm worried, then I might be convinced nothing will go wrong, but I will still be worried.

This obviously becomes a problem when, like in OP's example, people make it about the emotions themselves.

  • It can be done and is called therapy, but it requires highly trained professionals, lots of time and effort, and the target's cooperation.

I think it is true as a general statement. In the battle between the subconscious and reason, reason is going to lose every single time.

Well that just intuitively sounds wrong to me. /s

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