site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31249 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://benthams.substack.com/p/hordes-of-vultures-descend-on-bostrom

Bentham’s Bulldog discusses a recent apology letter from Nick Bostrom for saying the n-word as well as saying that blacks have lower average intelligence in an offensive way in the mid-nineties. Bostrom also says in the apology letter that he’s not really a supporter of eugenics as some claim. Despite apologizing, Bostrom is attacked still for reiterating he believes in IQ gaps and “handwaving” about eugenics.

I used to look at the declining number of Christians in the U.S. to conclude that people were becoming more rational.

Now I realize that religiosity has just transferred -- slavery was the Original Sin, racism is the Devil, and we are all guilty unless we Repent (become anti-racist) and Jesus (black people) alone can forgive us.

It's so tiring.

No, it hasn’t. A list of parallels doesn’t make something a religion.

They aren’t even good examples! Racism isn’t an entity. Anti-racism lacks various key features of Christian repentance, such as securing an afterlife. Black people are not serving as a proxy for Christ the Redeemer and His voluntary self-sacrifice.

The buck basically stops at “both these groups have some idea of blame and atonement,” which is not exactly unique. Capitalism has debt; that doesn’t make it religious. Game theory’s tit-for-tat strategy doesn’t pigeonhole researchers as zealots.

It doesn't have to be a 1:1 match with Christianity to be a religion.

Religion tends to imply far-reaching moral claims and ways of living organized around mystical / supernatural ideas. Anti-racism/progressivism may be distinctly christian, and may make significant moral claims, but it isn't a religion - it doesn't have supernatural claims, nor does it provide a grounding for all or even most moral claims.

It's claimed to be a religion because of the combination of moral dedication and seeming wrongness - as if people follow it religiously because of a 'religious impulse' to believe strong moral claims at the expense of correctness. This doesn't work because wokeness makes specific, non-mystical claims - calling it a religion doesn't actually rebut the claims (it'd come closer if woke people believed in an Anti-Racism Allfather that lived in the sun, but it doesn't!).

Religion tends to imply far-reaching moral claims

Progressivism has those.

and ways of living organized around mystical / supernatural ideas.

Modify this to "unfalsifiable ideas", and Progressivism has those.

It's claimed to be a religion because of the combination of moral dedication and seeming wrongness - as if people follow it religiously because of a 'religious impulse' to believe strong moral claims at the expense of correctness.

No, it's claimed to be a religion because people have faith in it.

This doesn't work because wokeness makes specific, non-mystical claims - calling it a religion doesn't actually rebut the claims (it'd come closer if woke people believed in an Anti-Racism Allfather that lived in the sun, but it doesn't!).

I'd say the claims are plenty "mystical". They don't need to be supernatural to be unfalsifiable, supra-rational, and they are definately used as the basis for moral reasoning that is not otherwise justified.

and ways of living organized around mystical / supernatural ideas. ...Modify this to "unfalsifiable ideas", and Progressivism has those.

Yeah, and my point is 'unfalsifiable ideas' is a much broader concept than 'mystical and supernatural ideas'. A supernatural idea is 'God created the universe, piece by piece, and you go to hell if you don't believe in god'. One example of an unfalsifiable belief is: "everyone hates me. no matter how much they say they like me, they secretly hate me". another is "everyone is fundamentally good. no matter how many evil acts they commit, their nature is goodness".

No, it's claimed to be a religion because people have faith in it.

If "faith" means "believing in something that is false", or "believing in something that's not falsifiable" then sure. If faith means something like 'choosing to believe in something even though you acknowledge it can't ever be proven, because you recognize it's your duty to believe', then ... no, progressives would claim their beliefs are normal, observable, and true, and not 'held on faith'. And the sense in which faith relates to religion seems more the latter to me.

Progressivism is, like, a set of beliefs that some people believe in for social/tribal reasons. It also gives some people a sense of community and purpose. Religions also do that, and it's "like" a religion in that sense. But in that sense Apple as an employer is also a religion, as is heavy metal music, so eh.

another is "everyone is fundamentally good. no matter how many evil acts they commit, their nature is goodness".

This belief is not merely unfalsifiable; it is supernatural. It posits a good which exists outside observable reality. The same is true for progressive beliefs.

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