site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35015 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 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.

16
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm not trying to maximize free speech Y-intercept; I'm trying to maximize free speech AUC over time.

If it's 1995 and your goal is to allow for maximum degrees of freedom in human sexuality / sexual identification, you first amplify only homosexuality (mildly to moderately unacceptable relative to the population's current position); only once that's accepted do you amplify transsexuality. If you skip step 1 there's a huge negative reaction that works against your goal.

P.S. Thank you for framing it as a question rather than other commenters who just made a bunch of assumptions.

This "free speech maximalist" position is compatible with unlimited censorship if free speech is deeply unpopular.

It's confusing to appropriate the label of a group with fundamentally different stances to your own. Believing that women staying in the kitchen maximizes female welfare and freedom doesn't make one a feminist. There's other labels for that set of beliefs that more accurately convey useful information to the audience.

I do find this phenomenon very interesting. I've encountered people many years ago who told me that if I really despise modern feminism so much, I should call myself a feminist and work to reform it from the inside. When is it appropriate to do it, and when it it not? I know that I call myself a liberal, partly to try to "reclaim" the label, partly because it makes people (in my circles, anyway) not just want to write you off as crazy or hateful, and partly because I do believe in classically liberal values, even though liberalism really does more often than not mean leftism these days.

But in general, I am often against such appropriation. Like you say, it's highly confusing, and it seems really intellectually dishonest in certain cases.

To save the freedom of speech, we must curtail unpopular speech!

Hard pass. Calling this "free speech maximalism" is an insult to the intellect.

Yes, let's make sure Twitter gets bankrupted / regulated out of existence, that'll show those censors!

To be clear (copied from another post of mine):

"If I were Musk and you posted that on Twitter, I wouldn't care. Nobody knows who you are and I agree the image is largely harmless. Maybe some NYT journalist compiles the '500 incidents of anti-Semitism' but it can largely be shrugged off since only the disproportionately-loud chattering class cares what the NYT says.

If you're Kanye West and have been actively in the news for being anti-Semitic, recently required my intervention to un-ban, and have been posting progressively "edgy" things, then you're damn right I'm going to ban you to maintain the commercial viability and existence of my platform."

Yes, let's make sure Twitter gets bankrupted / regulated out of existence, that'll show those censors!

Fine, but call yourself a free speech pragmatist.

Touché

I mean, I do honestly think that Twitter going out of business could be good for free speech. It could result in a bunch of Twitter copycats trying to all start up and take their place, and it may be a while, or never, before the dust settles and one of them is crowned the new Twitter. It'd be great if everyone didn't have to go to one single company who owns the monopoly on the public discourse, and would likely allow for greater diversity in speech.

I don't know where you're coming from with this position, it's not something I've encountered before. But uncharitably, it sounds like something someone who's anti-free speech would say if they wanted to get pro-free speech people onboard with censorship. "Hey, censoring specific people really maximizes the amount of free speech over time, trust me!"

You might have some point, but I think it's far too abusable, and also far too inscrutable to know what'll actually work and what wouldn't.

Uncharitably, the other side of the table sounds to me like "I get to feel superior on some edgy corner of the internet, and then whine about it as my side continually loses battle after battle in the culture war".

Uncharitably, the other side of the table sounds to me like "I get to feel superior on some edgy corner of the internet, and then whine about it as my side continually loses battle after battle in the culture war".

Well, then, I think you've just let us know exactly what side of the debate you really fall on, if you view what most of us would consider to be pro-free speech in such disdain.

I guess this is how conversations go when both sides frame things uncharitably?

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