site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31769 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Conservatives aren't eager to spend a lot of political capital helping out men who made the mistake of, as the saying goes, "sticking their dick in crazy".

Women tend to care more about family courts. It’s easy to get them riled up with stories of suffering children. Many aren’t sympathetic to men who get a raw deal there.

Plus, there’s a bit of schadenfreude involved. Liberal men often buy into the extremely pro-women talk in their circles. They are usually the ones who end up marrying the BPD / NPD / Cluster-B women who work the courts against them.

I'm not sure this is true. As far as anyone can tell, poor secular people(who might be more socially liberal than conservatives or republicans but are much more socially conservative than liberals or democrats) bear the brunt of marrying women with actual mental illnesses. I'm sure that the women who marry liberal men are more likely to have been diagnosed with mental illnesses, but that's confounded all to heck. It is likely slightly better to be a white wealthy religious conservative than a white wealthy religious liberal, from this perspective, but I doubt there's a massive difference.

From what I can tell, the men who end up with crazies tend to be mostly the poor and uneducated. Coastal, upper middle class, professional men tend to end up with a woman similarly socially situated; you might say those partners have their own psychological issues, but they're not the ones who pull knives on you, issue false accusations, burn your stuff in the yard, make dramatic "attempts" at killing themselves, or have three secret baby daddies.

I’m more talking the far left aspiring creative types. Look at this list of Zoe Quinn’s exes. Or Dave Foley and Tabatha Southey.

The more upper class have the social structures to defend themselves.

The lower class lefties take cultural cues to reject traditional expectations of women but don’t have anything to replace them with.

They are usually the ones who end up marrying the BPD / NPD / Cluster-B women who work the courts against them.

Any stats on this?

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