site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32165 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.

The way she framed it conservatives in Singapore made a deal: "ok, we'll give you decriminalization, but we want to make sure it doesn't go further than that" (to that end they even "fortified" marriage in law). She makes it sound like it's an obstacle to overcome, not a compromise to be honored.

This is just silly; no political compromise has the right to endure eternally simply because at one time it was made; was the admittance of California to the union wrong because it overturned the compromise of 1820? Were Republicans wrong for trying to overturn the 1850 compromise?

Yes, it's like expressing a preference on what kind of food your neighbor eats, or how often they have sex. It's none of your business, and it's creepy to poke your nose into it.

Except one's food or sexual habits are basically unimportant; politics is not. I have nothing wrong with Evangelicals trying to effect a change in attitude in foreign countries; I disagree with the content of their arguments, but I don't question their right to spread their views wherever they might wish to.

There was a literal international conspiracy to get them to stop. It didn't not involve direct force, but these people did not recognize they're putting their nose somewhere it doesn't belong. Also, keep in mind when I brought up experimenting with different setups, I explicitly mentioned marriage, not sodomy laws.

While I'm not some ultra-hawk, on pragmatic grounds, foreign and international groups have every right to put their nose where they like; if something is wrong, it doesn't diminish one's right to intervene to rectify that wrong because it's happening somewhere else.

The countries themselves can make whatever decisions they want.

This verges on being something of a truism; in practice they are sovereign countries and they can do what they like, that doesn't mean they should or that international organisations or individuals shouldn't attempt to prevent other countries enacting a particular policy.

This is just silly; no political compromise has the right to endure eternally simply because at one time it was made

I never said it has to be eternal, but it's incorrect to call it a compromise, if you're already plotting how to abolish it before the ink is even dry on the law that was passed.

The other question is that whether do people from other countries have a right to poke their nose into it. I hold that no.

was the admittance of California to the union wrong because it overturned the compromise of 1820

Putting the word "California" next to the word "wrong" is just a set up for me to say "yes" no matter what the sentence is about. More seriously - don't know. Would have to read up on it.

Except one's food or sexual habits are basically unimportant; politics is not.

I'm pretty sure sex is important to the people having it, and food is important to the people eating it. It should be unimportant to their neighbors, and if their neighbors somehow find it important, then they're creeps. Same applies to countries' politics.

While I'm not some ultra-hawk, on pragmatic grounds, foreign and international groups have every right to put their nose where they like; if something is wrong

There are cases where something very wrong is happening where you could get me to agree, but mostly I think this is wrong.

I never said it has to be eternal, but it's incorrect to call it a compromise, if you're already plotting how to abolish it before the ink is even dry on the law that was passed.

I think this argument misstates what a compromise really is. By comprising on an issue, one is not implicitly accepting a middle course as the right thing to do, rather one is simply attempting to secure the maximum feasible progress which very often will not be all of what one wants to happen, and should more change towards one's position become feasible, of course that's going to be pursued.

That's just politics, and the point of my 1820 compromise analogy. Essentially the 1820 compromise was devised to ensure an equal balance of free and slave states, thus ensuring neither faction could control the Senate; but of course once the northern states secured sufficient power to overturn that and admit California as a free state without also creating another slave state, they did so, and the south would have done the same had they had the ability.

I'm pretty sure sex is important to the people having it, and food is important to the people eating it. It should be unimportant to their neighbors, and if their neighbors somehow find it important, then they're creeps. Same applies to countries' politics.

The other key difference though is that where one's culinary and sexual habits only concern one or two individuals and have no real impact on anyone else, and so there is no real cause for a neighbour to interfere. However, in the case of LGBT rights international observers/organisations are not trying to dictate Singaporean's habits but stop one set of Singaporeans dictating the habits of another set of Singaporeans. So the apt analogy is not someone trying to stop a neighbour having sex, but someone trying to stop their neighbour trying to stop another neighbour from having sex, if that's makes sense.

By comprising on an issue, one is not implicitly accepting a middle course as the right thing to do

Never said they do. The point is about respecting the compromise, not plotting to undermine it as soon as possible.

That's just politics

Well, that's kind of my point. When we moved from gay marriage to "bake the cake" to "trans people just want to pee", to "trans women are women" to "if you don't transition teenagers you're a bigot", I'm saying there's no reason to believe this ride is going to stop at any point that is promised at any given moment. For all we know the groomer meme is real, and "MAP acceptance" is the next point on the list.

The other key difference though is that where one's culinary and sexual habits only concern one or two individuals and have no real impact on anyone else

I don't see that as a difference. The amount of neighbors impacted by you eating a certain meal is precisely equal to the amount of non-Singaporeans impacted by Singapore's marriage laws.

However, in the case of LGBT rights international observers/organisations are not trying to dictate Singaporean's habits but stop one set of Singaporeans dictating the habits of another set of Singaporeans

I have missed the moment when international observers started advocating for the absolute sovereignty of the individual. When will they start advocating for non-mandatory taxation?

It's very possible for compromises to become ossified wisdom, though. The US Constitution was formed upon a compromise piled on compromise (between slave and free states, between small and big states, strong central government and weak central government advocates etc.), and while some of those compromises were overturned or altered, others have stayed and become state wisdom.

Or, to take an example from Finnish history, during the language strife of 1800s, the strongest Finnish-language advocates advocated for a position called "one nation, one language" (ie. Finland's Swedish-speaking minority should be assimilated to the Finnish majority), the strongest Swedish-language advocates advocated for a position called "two nations, two languages" (The Swedish-speakers constituted a separate and superior nation to Asiatic Finns), and the compromise position "one nation, two languages" (both Finnish-speakers and Swedish-speakers were equally Finnish) then became established state wisdom and has remained such to this day.

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