site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32946 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 27, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This isn’t culture war for today. It was between roughly 1918-1930’s. It’s short and about why he quit drinking alcohol. In my opinion he hit all the key points on the subject, his logic is correct, and wrote it in a very concise way.

He does seem to miss drinking alcohol. I have to agree as a mild alcoholic he’s correct. I think he’s also correct that cannabis isn’t the great substitute society now claims it is. Shrooms I am far less sure on.

It’s not culture war today but I’ve grown a lot of respect for the prohibitionists as being basically correct. I also wanted to post this as I felt like it’s a good example of fantastic writing.

https://pmarca.substack.com/p/on-pausing-alcohol?r=h8x

Edit: should we either more explicitly allow less culture war subjects or have another thread. Sitting on an Afghanistan article I found that was good journalism but it’s not heavily culture war

Incidentally, alcohol is a culture war in Finland, or at least a heavily culture-war-type subject that pops up in national politics from time to time. Prohibition is not on the agenda, but the alcohol laws are still fairly tight, and there are set tribes on this topic that keep having the same debates over and over again (with nanny-state leftists and conservative Christians in one camp and various free-marketeers and cosmopolitan 'European' types in the other). Alcohol deaths and its effects on health are a constant worry, though of course the opinions on whether public policy can actually account for this vary.

Underpinning it all is a consistent topic on whether Finns are just culturally unable to handle alcohol without being tightly regulated or whether instead Finnish drinking habits (ie. binge drinking during the weekend, sobriety during the week) could be developed to a more "European" direction of (presumably) not bingeing in the weekend but also having wine and beer during working lunches and so on. During the COVID time, of course, the alcohol policy debates became about whether bar closures etc. are evidence of nanny-statist government hating alcohol so much it is willing to let barkeepers go under, instead of doing some other restrictions or not doing restrictions at all.

In some ways, after following all this closely, it starts looking a bit surprising that alcohol isn't a culture war issue in other countries. Alcohol is, after all, a huge part of the Western culture in general, various alcohol-related fields form a considerable part of economy (ie. not only considering the sales of alcohol as such but its role in restaurants, tourism etc.), alcohol abuse has a vast amount of negative effects on health, crime and such, and the comparable subject of drug policy has certainly been a culture-war issue.

In some ways, after following all this closely, it starts looking a bit surprising that alcohol isn't a culture war issue in other countries.

It sort of is, in Ireland. We've long had a problematic relationship with alcohol, attempts at temperance have been driven by religious organisations - even when I was making my confirmation back in the mid-70s, the joke at the time was they got us to take the (temporary) pledge then at age 12 because if they left it later we'd already have started drinking - and there are the same arguments over "European-style drinking" and extended opening hours, etc. The proponents say that if we have European-style opening hours and nightclubs and so forth, people won't be rushing to drink to excess in a few hours but can spread it out over the night.

The problem in part is, when people are young, they drink to get drunk (legal drinking age in Ireland is 18 which always trips me up when I see Americans talk about under-age drinking at college, and they mean '20 year old drank beer or even alcopops'). They don't care about taste, they drink as much as fast as possible to get shit-faced and they want more bang for their buck, which of course is why bars offer special rates to college students.

We even have the charity campaigning for responsible drinking being funded by the alcohol industry, copying the UK version. Partly this is to help ameliorate the stigma from public drunkenness and to avoid punitive measures by government to cut down drinking by slapping taxes etc. on alcohol. They want to sell drink, after all, not promote Prohibition. So if campaigns around "don't binge drink" work, then all the better for them, as it means no pressure for prohibition (though that would never work here). Much the same motives as described below:

UK version:

In 2006, Drinkaware was established as a charity in the United Kingdom following a memorandum of understanding between the Portman Group and various UK government agencies. This debate piece briefly reviews the international literature on industry social aspects organizations, examines the nature of Drinkaware's activities and considers how the public health community should respond. Although the British addiction field and the wider public health community have distanced themselves from the Portman Group, they have not done so from Drinkaware, even though Drinkaware was devised by the Portman Group to serve industry interests. Both long-standing and more recent developments indicate very high levels of industry influence on British alcohol policy, and Drinkaware provides one mechanism of influence. We suggest that working with, and for, industry bodies such as Drinkaware helps disguise fundamental conflicts of interest and serves only to legitimize corporate efforts to promote partnership as a means of averting evidence-based alcohol policies. We invite vigorous debate on these internationally significant issues and propose that similar industry bodies should be carefully studied in other countries.

I don't know about the Finns, but I don't think Irish drinking culture will change that greatly even if we do adopt "European models". Underage drinking is being tackled, and is improving, but it's still a problem. The kind of solutions offered as in this article (the Icelandic model) may or may not work - a national curfew where all under-16 year olds have to be home by 10 pm? Good luck with that, I can already hear the civil liberties crowd complaining about a police state.

The kind of solutions offered as in this article (the Icelandic model) may or may not work - a national curfew where all under-16 year olds have to be home by 10 pm? Good luck with that, I can already hear the civil liberties crowd complaining about a police state.

Do you think they're wrong? That policy sounds absolutely terrible to me, effectively infantilizing young adults out of a misplaced concern for their safety. When I was 16, it was pretty common for me to be at a friend's house pretty late, playing video games or just messing around, then drive home. If I lived in a town, I suppose it would have been walking or biking home instead. I have trouble imagining growing up in world where playing Halo until 11 PM is unreasonably dangerous behavior.

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