site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32827 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 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.

15
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Though Scott stresses repeatedly, that anorexia or anything else is not "less real" even if the underlying cause is 100% social and 0% biological. Do you think mass shootings don't exist? Of course not. An anorexic girl will still be anorexic and is in danger to hunger herself to death.

This is a bit weird to truly wrap ones head around. Lets take demonic possession. Deciding that there are no demons (or maybe very few) is a valid position. But there is a difference between A) this isn't real, possessed people are faking it, and B) the brains predictive engine is very good in simulating, and the individual experience/qualia is suffering under demonic influence.

I think the answer is ‘so what if it’s real that some people feel like women trapped in men’s bodies. Society doesn’t owe comfort to weirdos.’

I think your phrasing may come across as unduly harsh, but I'd agree with an amplified version. Society doesn't owe comfort to anyone. Comfort is something to seek and give on an individual basis, and generally isn't owed, with some exceptions, as within a family context.

It…kind of does, though. See the ADA, special ed, prison reform. Any number of other times society accepts some cost to mitigate harm for a disadvantaged group.

The question is how much.

100% Most conservatives also agree, but, stereotypically, see it as the church helping widows and orphans.

We are a rich society, and I think that behooves us to help the less fortunate. The trick is how much, and doing it in a way that doesn't encourage too much becoming an 'unfortunate'. I think that's a really complex topic, and one, unfortunately that seems hard to talk about.

E.g. I think having decent unemployment insurance and welfare is a net social good, reduces stress, making people more willing to change jobs, and even reducing crime (as you have more to lose). OTOH, it of course incentivizes people who could work, but just don't, which parasitizes society. I don't think you can have the one side without some of the other, and the key to good policy is finding the balance, and ways decrease the bad effects in ways that don't decrease the good effects more.

Like @The_Nybbler said, I think that the ADA was a huge mistake. Well intentioned, yes, but a mistake nonetheless. We can't reasonably try to build all of society to conform to the needs of a small minority of people.

I’ll defend it on veil-of-ignorance grounds, I guess. I don’t have strong feelings now, but I would want to have those accommodations if I were wheelchair bound or whatever. And unlike gender we have the expectation that it could happen to us. That makes it a hedge against breaking your leg or getting paralyzed.

I’m not sure that’s literally how the ADA got traction. There was a good dose of political pressure from the beneficiaries, as with women’s suffrage or race relations. But it was enough to get some outsiders saying “these people are right; it doesn’t matter that they can’t beat me in a fight.”

Point is, sometimes society does extend charity. Maybe pronoun usage, or making insurance cover hormone therapy, is too far. But it’s not unthinkable.

I’ll defend it on veil-of-ignorance grounds, I guess

I'll attack them on veil-of-ignorance grounds: Even if I ended up in a disadvantaged position myself, I'd rather be born into a society with functional institutions for the average person, than into a society that gives me more handouts, but results in massive barriers for getting anything done.

All of those are errors. The ADA is the second reason we can't build anything (NEPA being the first). Special ed ends up consuming a large percentage, sometimes a majority, of education resources trying to educate the uneducable -- and in worse forms it sometimes ends up ruining education for the rest.

Deciding that there are no demons (or maybe very few) is a valid position.

Not only that, but convincing others that there aren't actually very many demons and the are probably not currently in the thrall of one seems likely to decrease the number of apparent demonic possessions. In contrast, saying that demonic possession is common, shouldn't be judged, and needs a flag to support brave people of possession seems likely to increase apparent demonic possession above ambient levels.

Well, I think that still could mean that the best way to help reduce the number of people suffering such conditions is to not publicize and normalize it so much.

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