site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32146 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 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
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Or you could just be smarter about which vices you indulge.

I think the assumption that it's the legislators who are the idiots and not the people uploading their data points to a deep cultural divide.

Well, when people are horny and want to see porn, they're not exactly thinking with their upper head. That's not something that one can ever change, I think - at least for some people. Of course, one can always question whether people electing politicians that do such things to them aren't worse idiots themselves, and that'd be a valid question too.

Well, when people are horny and want to see porn, they're not exactly thinking with their upper head.

You're not wrong but the underlying assumption justifying yours and a lot of other people's replies here, namely that people should not be punished for "thinking with the thinking with wrong head" and anyone who suggests or suggests otherwise is an idiot is in itself very secular progressive blue-tribe academic, and not nearly as universal as you're making it out to be.

I think that's the first time somebody called me a "secular progressive blue-tribe academic". Over my many years on the internets (and before internets) I've been called many things, but not that. Funny thing that every single word in this description is wrong :)

Are you working on or have a degree? Are you an Atheist? Do you believe that there is a "right" and a "wrong" side of history to be on?

If you answered 2 or more of those questions in the affirmative I'd say the description is accurate given your prior responses here.

Are you working on or have a degree?

Yes, but I don't think "academic" means that. I have a degree because learning for my craft is done (or has been done when I learned it, things changed a bit now) in institutions that give you a degree when you're done learning. That's pretty much all the use I ever had of me having a degree.

Are you an Atheist?

Nope.

Do you believe that there is a "right" and a "wrong" side of history to be on?

Err... maybe? But probably not in a way you mean it. I believe there's good and evil, if that's what you mean (which is kind of mandated by the previous answer I guess?) so I guess somebody that does a lot of evil and not a lot of good can be defined as "wrong side of history", but I do not believe the history has a goal or is moving towards any definable goal, or that there is a political movement that is always correct and infallible.

I'd say the description is accurate given your prior responses here.

I guess I have to submit to your authority. A guy who knows me from a handful of random posts on the internet is definitely a better expert on me than me.

Or you could just be smarter about which vices you indulge.

What vices or 'vices' do you think won't be future targets by our Betters? I've spoken at length before about how gun or political donation databases -- meant with the best of intentions and sworn to privacy, everyone swears -- keep getting leaked. And it's not like things have stopped there.

All of them? None of them? The apparent assumption that you are somehow entitled to live in a permissive environment is a major component of the "cultural divide" that I am referring to. The assumption that vices must not only be tolerated, but affirmed and protected is not one that I share.

My assumption is a little closer to "people who I don't trust are building very dangerous tools, and have a long history of pointing at me and mine, and I shouldn't need to ignore it". The question of what deserves to be 'affirmed' or 'protected' isn't particularly interesting or even very meaningful compared to the question of what, exactly, you're willing to do about your own interests. The paranoid libertarian perspective is a bit less than the left-'liberal'tarian one.

Neither do I share your perspective, fair!

But at the same time, "you could just be smarter about which vices you indulge" sounds less like a normative description and more a tactical plan. And it's a tactical one that I think is very badly devised. You may intend to avoid being ruled in some philosophical sense, and that's might Christian of you, but I'm a bit more interested in planning before the "someone might someday put a gun to my head for refusing to play their tune" point.

You can also be smarter about how you indulge in them. If slamming the banhammer on pornhub means people rediscover the Pirate Bay, I say it's worth it!

Both can be stupid, this isn't an either/or choice here.

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