site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   33001 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.

How can it be a myth if it is true? I'm sure some redneck everyone made fun of said: "ma pa drank nothin but beer and never got the colora"

Because it isn't true: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ol1h45/deleted_by_user/h5bjn7s/

Typical askhistorians drivel. Just list a bunch of ambiguous anecdotes and let your authoritative tone carry the day.

If a water source was clear, odorless, and cold, they'd consider it quite drinkable.

An obvious but rather limited understanding of water’s drinkability.

Pliny the Elder preferred well water best of all, while Columella preferred spring water and put well water beneath that.

So there was no elite consensus, but even if there was, it does not translate to common understanding.

We can also look to what happens when someone messes with the water. If the myth were true, we should expect not much of a reaction, since people could simply avoid the water by turning more to alcohol.

Does not follow. All it requires is people believing that water can get dirtier and that beer is expensive.

And there is the example of a case from 1262. In Siena, a woman was accused of deliberately poisoning the fountains. The punishment was to be flayed alive and burned.

When they got sick from drinking the water, their primitive understanding naturally lead them to suspect poison, and so innocents died.

In 1367, some men of the papal marshal's retinue thought it was a good idea to wash a puppy. Right in the main basin of a fountain. This drew the attention of one of the local women, who roundly castigated the men.

You can use this anecdote either way: the retinue did not care about the water.

Mind you, they also justified this avoidance of water with some Roman-era treatises, but let's be real: it's because they didn't want to drink water if it could be helped.

This guy, who by his own admission made it his life’s work to kill this “myth”, turns into a mind-reader all of a sudden. So when common folk considered the drinkability of water, they were at the cutting edge of contemporary science, but when the turn came for beer’s assessment, they reverted to an animalistic mindset.

So the myth of 'Medievals drank alcohol because the water is unsafe' has a long, long provenance, to the Medievals themselves.

There you go, even the medievals said so. Everywhere else, he takes them at their word. But his ax to grind won't let him do so here.

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