site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   30419 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.

Yeah, I realise numbers are often used like that, but it still makes me wince at the sheer magnitude of the error. It’s not a mistake that an even vaguely numerate and scientifically informed person should make. It’s like saying “billions of people died in the Second World War”, or thinking a banana would cost $10.

Shakespeare lived around 1200 or something? Maybe 1930? 1600 BC?

Related to this, I'd often heard the fact that the time between Cleopatra and today is shorter than the time between Cleopatra and the building of the pyramids. I found that surprising at first, but then more recently I learned that Cleopatra was a contemporary of Caesar (i.e., she lived around 0 AD). At which point the fact became obvious to me—the pyramids are 5000 years old, Cleopatra lived 2000 years ago, of course 5000 - 2000 > 2000. My confusion came from "ancient Egypt = 5000 years ago, Cleopatra is ancient Egypt, therefore Cleopatra = 5000 years ago". Not sure if this makes me dumber or less dumb.

There's a status danger of looking like a trivia nerd. Instead, people want to be the visionary, big picture person.

I think there are a few competing memes that result in this.

  1. The superficial status risk to looking like a nerd.

  2. Implicit in the above is that, it's all book smarts with no actual smarts to back it up. Ignorant to the process that one has to be book smart first let that be through reading books or experience before one can actually be smart.

  3. The belief that the "big picture" is a thing of its own and not a collage of various smaller pictures.

I would classify all of the above as infohazards. I can only shudder at the amount of things people didn't learn because they fell for any of the above, and the collective loss as a result of that.

The older I get the more wisdom I see in the old Egyptian character for a large number sometimes presented as one million, it was a guy throwing his hands up as if exclaiming how could there even be this many things. That seems to be about where most non math people just stop worrying about numbers.

Same with the Mandarin word for "a big number" being translated as 10,000 (IIRC it literally means 10,000 in Mandarin).

I guess this is what leads to people thinking $500 million dollars is enough to make every American a millionaire.

Or my favorite recently, that charging every American a $1 per Capita head tax would in any way be a revenue raiser instead of a symbolic gesture.

The look on his face as I sketched out how little and narrow a wealth tax on fortunes above $1bn would be necessary to raise that same amount.

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