site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   27863 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 26, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This seems like a troll to me. But if it's not a troll, then it's you wishing death on your outgroup without really engaging the argument in a plausibly serious way--for which you have already been banned once.

This is a discussion forum. If you aren't interested in engaging seriously and charitably with the thoughts of people whose views you abhor, then maybe this is not the place for you.

Banned for three days.

Banning comments like this is bad considering how rare they are. If they were more common I'd agree with a ban, but there is a genuine discourse to be had when people have put their obvious intent of destroying the outgroup into the open. Preventing people from engaging with it by banning the person who opened up leaves this space poorer for it.

If banning comments like this keeps them rare, then I'm happy with that. While the original is a troll, I don't think that there are very many genuine posters on here who do have an "obvious intent of destroying the outgroup" and if there are any, then I prefer that they realise this is not a space where "let's kill everyone we don't like and everyone we disagree with" is welcomed (it may be debated, but not that it is "welcome fellow traveller, yes indeed let us wade in blood up to the ankle!"), and if they see bans and think "Aw man, I thought these guys were dependably [whatever colour of being '-pilled' we're up to now, between redpilled, blackpilled and the rest of it] but they've just succumbed to the Woke Menace" and betake themselves elsewhere, then good.

A few comments like this that get ignored (if obvious trolls) or debated (if they seem sincere) is tolerable. A flood of them is not.

Any discourse that happens ends up happening downthread, not with the actual user. And that discourse between actual contributors ends up being about how evil outgroup is for their "obvious intent of destroying the outgroup." No one would deny people like the troll exist--imagine a viewpoint, and there's always someone, somewhere out there who believes it--but it's just burning down a strawman of those views. It generates a significantly worse ratio of heat to light.

We've got a fairly good thread going here. Do you think your assessment of the likely outcome stands?

It's better than I'd have expected. On the other hand, the original poster has in fact been banned; if he weren't, he'd be in the thread throwing shit everywhere.

A fair point.

Leaving the banned OP’s manifestopost visible and allowing us to “poke the corpse with a stick” is certainly entertaining and enlightening, on the other hand.

I think it's kind of pathetic to not let the guy have a chance to respond. Just looks like effeminate bullying.

Just looks like effeminate bullying.

And what is wrong with effeminacy, you big burly butch man, you? 😘

The bullying part.

There are community standards and legal reasons which both need to be upheld.

This comment is irrelevant to what I wrote. I'm not unaware that there are rules and preferred etiquette here. The point being made was that due to the rarity and novelty of the post you can let it slide.

On the other hand, no, there are not legal reasons at play here. The post did not break laws, which is why it was not removed and the user only got a 3 day ban. You can, in fact, make very provocative statements about what you think should have happened or what you think will happen or should happen in some undetermined legal manner in the future to some group.

To clarify, I meant that the post itself did not break laws, but allowing the user to generate and gather followers here through potential responses would put the site in jeopardy.

'Gather followers'? This is silly. Akin to calling someone responding to your comments 'harassment'.

More comments

Verbal jousting is surely more entertaining but given the guy basically said that all his enemies should be silenced and killed, I think the irony is fitting.

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