site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31021 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The latest abortion kerfuffle is decently well in the past now, and we've had a number of good threads on it in various places. I think it's a reasonable time to ask here:

Have you changed your personal opinion or political position on abortion access at all over the course of the last year or so? If so, to what, and based on what?

After seeing the general pattern of "no limiting principle" coming from the blue side (on at least trans issues, abortion, and assisted euthanasia), my views have swung towards the pro-life side but in a way that isn't really backed by the traditional axiom of fetal personhood. Instead, it is backed by the revulsion I feel towards people who gleefully abort instead of using birth control, and my view that sex is a serious thing with serious consequences that you do not frivolously engage with. I also strongly believe that humanity needs its best and brightest to reproduce if we want to pass the great filter, and am much more in favor of good people having kids than I was even three years ago. Unlike the traditional red-tribe view, I am somewhat okay with people aborting severely disabled or nonviable fetuses. But that road leads to dark places unless stopped with a limiting principle of its own, and so I cannot endorse it unreservedly either.

I also strongly believe that humanity needs its best and brightest to reproduce if we want to pass the great filter, and am much more in favor of good people having kids than I was even three years ago.

I agree with this strongly but I have the opposite takeaway on abortion. Statistics show that those having abortions are disproportionately poor, black and uneducated. They're the opposite of the kind of people we want reproducing. The best and the brightest need abortions less frequently because they're more capable of effectively using birth control

How many of those people are there?

I worry that the sides in this culture war have obvious incentives to paint opponents as uncompromising extremists, while in reality, most Americans support restrictions. And most women getting an abortion haven’t had one before, which suggests abortion-as-birth-control is relatively rare. I would still like to see that eliminated, and easy access to contraception is probably the best way to do so...but the constituency interested in banning abortion is also proud to make that more difficult.

That’s why I’m not fond of arguments from “no limiting principle.” It is easy to mistake the political value of extremist stances for an actual desire to implement them. Plus, the media has every incentive to demonize their outgroup with its worst examples. In the interest of avoiding toxoplasma of rage, I try to focus on the grounds for compromise. For abortion, that’s far more popular than the media suggests.

By all means, believe that the 8% of Americans supporting unconditional abortion are extremists. That shouldn’t prevent treating with the broader group. There are ~5 times as many people who believe in restrictions, in exceptions, and who vote against the absolutist measures proposed by the other end of the spectrum. Why should the extremists get to drown them out?

There are responses in this thread claiming that “left-wing” excesses have pushed them away from compromise positions on abortion. That is letting the terrorists win.

How many of those people are there?

Probably fewer than it looks like when I spend too much time online.

but in a way that isn't really backed by the traditional axiom of fetal personhood

How does this play with viability, BTW?

Unless I misunderstand you, I think I answered that above. Did you mean something else by your question?

Unlike the traditional red-tribe view, I am somewhat okay with people aborting severely disabled or nonviable fetuses.

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