site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   33096 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Funny how the burden of proof is never on you.

Is there any evidence that Baker was fired for petty reasons, did he even claim to be? Is there any evidence he inserted himself in the process in good faith? It could be true but I don't have evidence that at this point.

I'm not sure how you misread what I wrote to this degree. The post you are directly responding to explicitly said that it's possible that Musk fired Baker for lofty high-brow reasons. It's perfectly reasonable to place the burden of proof on the one making an assertion and my assertion in this case is "I don't have evidence to believe that". What objection do you have with my assertion?

You are instead asking me to provide evidence that Baker was fired for petty reasons, or that Baker acted in good faith. I never asserted either positions! I don't know if either of those things are true! How many different ways do I need to say this?

It's perfectly reasonable to place the burden of proof on the one making an assertion and my assertion in this case is "I don't have evidence to believe that". What objection do you have with my assertion?

I never asserted either positions! I don't know if either of those things are true! How many different ways do I need to say this?

The objection I have is that despite inserting a thousand technicalities you can hide behind when called out, we're not in court, and I don't need to let you hide behind these technicalities, and pretend you didn't just say what you clearly said. The content of your comments clearly says that "it doesn't make sense" for Baker to not be involved. You're wrong, it does, and you have not provided any evidence for that not being the case.

Yes my assertion is indeed "It doesn't make sense to think the general counsel of a company is not supposed to be vetting files before they are disclosed to an outside party" and I stand by that position. You saying that I'm wrong is not enough to make it so. Can you actually explain how I'm off-base? As best as I can tell so far the issue seems to be that I'm not credulously accepting whatever Elon Musk said. I already explained why I'm suspicious of his claims, which part of my argument do you object to?

Ok, we can play the game your way:

There is literally more evidence for fraud in the 2020 election, than there is for Baker acting in good faith regarding the disclosure of the Twitter Files, so why are you demanding people skeptical of Baker provide the evidence rather than the other way around?

My position on whether Baker acted in good/bad faith is "I don't know." I don't know the guy, I don't know how he reviewed the Twitter files, I don't know if he withheld anything improper, I don't know why he was fired, I don't know what explanations he gave Musk that were so unconvincing, and so forth. No one is obligated to give me evidence but if you want to sway me to one side or another, I need something stronger than "Elon Musk said so and we should take him at his word despite the absence of corroborating evidence he could trivially provide." So, until something else happens, I'll stay in the IDK camp.

Right, you're promoting a position of pure agnosticism, which is why you also demanded evidence for Baker acting in good faith, right?

I don't think I encountered anyone asserting that Baker acted in good faith. If someone made that claim then yes I would demand to see evidence. If they don't provide evidence I have no reason to believe their claim.

Hm, I think there is insufficient evidence to conclude that this is the reason why you never demanded evidence of the other side.

More comments

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