site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32154 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
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As an LGBT person how concerned should you be?

Probably pretty concerned.

Is it a different level of concern than you'd have if this group didn't exist and you believe that the banning of pride marches was not predicated on actual anti-LGBT bigotry so much as general prudishness?

The groups existence would make me more concerned than if it didn't exist.

I would think the things the group is advocating for are bad and I would be concerned that society was moving in that direction but I would not want the state to punish people who had done nothing more than convince other people to agree with them.

ETA:

Strikethrough unconnected aside about state power.

Replying to your edit, if the external powers successfully convince the local political players to adopt their positions, how aren't subsequent developments of local policies determined by what your fellow countrymen see as best? It almost seems to me like there's some posited injunction against interfering in a communities moral development by adding arguments they may not have considered.

Replying to your edit, if the external powers successfully convince the local political players to adopt their positions, how aren't subsequent developments of local policies determined by what your fellow countrymen see as best? It almost seems to me like there's some posited injunction against interfering in a communities moral development by adding arguments they may not have considered.

I think that international elite organization are a bit like the proverbial AI in a box trying to get out and you're arguing that if the ai can convince me to let it out it must mean I want to let it out. The AI is going to be very convincing, supernaturally convincing beyond what any local community itself can possibly combat. But what it's optimizing for is not our well being but its own and we should be very skeptical about how those things align.

Even if that's true, how do you think current Saudis or whoever got their homophobic or otherwise fundamentalist views, by thinking about the issues really hard? However 'supernaturally convincing' Western efforts might be, they're certainly less so than simply inheriting an unquestioning acceptance of those views.

I think there is a large difference between learning by example and being actively subjected to propaganda. I don't think I implied local communities should just think really hard about issues/values. I think they should actively experiment and yes, look at what works elsewhere in as objective of a lens as possible. If these communities see western countries relaxing prohibition on gays and it seems like it is harmless and helps people, and I think this is a conclusion they will likely reach, they can choose to adopt those norms. But I don't like the evangelical model here, it doesn't optimize for global truth, it optimizes for repeating whichever pattern is favored by international elites, a tiny tiny subset of people which could just as easily be reprehensible as it could be admirable.

I would not want the state to punish people who had done nothing more than convince other people to agree with them.

I'm not sure where this step came from? I have possibly missed it but what state intervention are you talking about?

I think I got my conversations crossed, my apologies. I was inferring (perhaps incorrectly) from arjin's post that they would support using state power to prevent this kind of outside interference.

I'm not so sure they wouldn't mind you, but I'm also not really sure what state power can do about extra national interference. Here in the US there are actually already laws on the books at the level of election interference but I'm not sure what kind of teeth they have. As someone at least quite sympathetic to libertarianism I am eternally stuck having defined behaviors and groups that I think are poisonous to the commons but can do very little more than be disheartened that others do not care. In my dream world people would take any attempt by extra-national entities to influence their beliefs as memetic hostility and update against whatever they are pushing, but I harbor no illusions that this world reflects our own.

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