site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   35439 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 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.

In providing a deliberate choice, it forces one to answer the question of which lifestyle is better.

It forces each individual who has the option of taking the pill to make a decision about how they would rather be, but I am not sure I see how it forces some kind of cross-individual evaluation of which way to be is "better."

The most defensible formulation of this position is that sure, gay is worse than straight (i.e. any parent would choose the latter for their kids), but some are born gay and there is nothing that can be done.

I am not sure what "this position" being defended is. What if I do not believe that being gay is worse than being straight?

If we are now discussing whether or not someone should (or be allowed to) become gay by choice, leftists would be forced into saying that yes, a sterile existence is better than starting a family.

I think I am as leftist as anyone and it is not clear to me how my beliefs oblige me to answer the way you say. Could you elaborate?

As a rightist assuming that leftism always wants more members of its protected groups (gay is a protected group), the pill would be seen as important technology and marketed towards children through schools and hospitals the same way transgenderism is.

Do you have any evidence for this? As a leftist myself and someone who knows lots of leftists this does not seem like it would be the case to me.

Then you believe a civilization that would extinct itself in one generation is on equal footing to one that wouldn't.

Sure. I do not think anything that causes a civilization to endure is made morally good by that fact. Moral goodness does not cash out in "causes civilization to continue."

If it indeed doesn't matter, it would not be worth it to develop and distribute this pill. All the subsequent pushing of the pill would of course not be happening until it's good that it is.

I am a little confused, you take it as a premise that the pill has already been developed. I am not particularly interested in developing a pill to convert straight people into gay people so my beliefs seem already consistent with believing it doesn't matter. I also am skeptical that leftists would be pushing anyone to take this who didn't want to.

It has to be pushed because to claim that gay and straight are equally good is to discredit pride and everything leftists have been saying and doing for 70 years.

I think this misunderstands the purpose of pride.

If gay is not better, why are we painting/waving the pride flag everywhere and explicitly preferring homosexuals in hiring decisions?

Pride is named the way it is explicitly as a response to the historical belief that being gay was something one ought to be ashamed of. Similarly we sometimes have preferences for gay people in hiring decisions for the same reasons we sometimes have them for African-Americans and women, because these groups have been historically discriminated against in those decisions. You identify this motivation in your own comment! It is not related to believing that being gay is better than being straight, it's a reaction against the idea that being gay is worse than being straight.

Why do kids need to attend drag queen story time?

Kids don't need to attend drag queen story time. I think it may even be wrong to force kids to attend one if they didn't want to. But it is also wrong to prevent all such events, even for those who want to attend them or put them on.

Do you also think it's okay to show kids ordinary porn? (Even relatively vanilla porn?)

No, but how is this related to my comment at all? Is a fully clothed person reading a childrens book pornographic?

The whole point of drag queens is sexuality. A better analogy would be like having a famous porn star read a children's book, under circumstances where it's obvious the porn star was chosen specifically for being a porn star. That's a way to sneak sexuality in front of kids while keeping plausible deniability.

I don't agree. People do drag for lots of reasons, including non-sexual ones.

  1. I do not believe that what you describe happened

  2. If it actually happened then it is outlier of the millioner-with-private-rape island variety

  3. If it happened then "WAT", especially at anyone staying there. I took emergency exists from less degenerated events.

  4. I will close Motte tabs because that is not even entertaining unlike bad takes on Russia

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