site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31751 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 New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How do you post here so long, and keep trying to come up with these gotchas without your brain presenting you canned responses like "my rules applied consistently > your rules applied consistently > your rules applied inconsistently" that you must have seen a thousand times before?

Be less antagonistic and more charitable. This entire thread is you assuming that your view of the world is right and that @Stefferi does not genuinely have a different perspective, but is insincerely playing gotcha. If you actually think that, ask more probative questions rather than jumping straight to the accusations and the snarling.

I'm not sure why that question should be summed up as "trying to come up with a gotcha". It's a genuine question.

The whole "my rules applied consistently..." thing, which I have indeed seen many times before, always seems to start with the presumption that it's obvious who the "me" and the "you" are. One might as well see the conservatives who are the "you" who want to apply their rules inconsistently; inbuilt biological gender roles when it benefits them, equal treatment of the sexes when that is what benefits them.

It's what I've called the "rule of equal but opposite hypocrisies", it seems almost every time one makes what is basically a hypocrisy argument between two positions they themselves could be seen as being equally hypocritical, just the other way around.

It seems to me there is a difference between (1) believing gender neutral rules while believing that gender will lead to different results and (2) believing rules should not be gender neutral.

I'm not sure why that question should be summed up as "trying to come up with a gotcha". It's a genuine question

It's an attempted gotcha because you're trying to win an argument with conservatives by holding them to their own standards.

always seems to start with the presumption that it's obvious who the "me" and the "you" are.

How can it be any clearer? In the context of this conversation one side believes in gender equality, and the other in traditional gender roles. You're clearly not writing from the perspective of someone who leans to the side of traditional gender roles.

One might as well see the conservatives who are the "you" who want to apply their rules inconsistently; inbuilt biological gender roles when it benefits them, equal treatment of the sexes when that is what benefits them.

No, one might not. Name one currently implemented policy that does not benefit women, which is justified by appealing to traditional gender roles.

It's what I've called the "rule of equal but opposite hypocrisies"

That's a misnomer if I ever saw one. Here not only would you have to show a single policy existing, you'd have to show there are roughly as many of them currently in force, as there are progressive ones.

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