site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34513 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 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.

16
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The attempt to refute the water main break story never passed mustered.

Which one are you referring to and why didn't it pass muster? What do you wish was done differently?

Well, there was a Georgia official who attempted to refute the story. However, there was clear documented statements made at the time that directly contradicted the later story.

I don't understand why you are being so vague. The uncharitable explanation is that you wish to avoid having your opinion scrutinized. So:

Which one are you referring to and why didn't it pass muster? What do you wish was done differently?

"Don't restart counting after telling the scrutineers you were stopping, and don't lie/hairplit/gaslight the public about that afterwards"?

What do you believe is missing? What do you believe should have been done differently with the investigation (if anything)?

I'd didn't say anything about the investigation -- if you don't want people accusing you of fraud, don't engage in fraud-like activity in the first place.

if you don't want people accusing you of fraud, don't engage in fraud-like activity in the first place.

This is really good advice in general, except it wouldn't have mattered here. Sidney Powell accepted a source on election fraud that claimed they got their info from the wind and she still accused people of fraud in a very public and legal manner. Some folks in this crowd were primed to believe anything unfortunately.

You asked about untoward shit that went down on election night, you got some patient answers, and now you slide back to your weakman -- you are the only one bringing up Powell today, why are you fixating on the obviously crazy allegations instead of addressing the things that real people find concerning?

I apologize, I realize now that I misread your response. I didn't realize that your "Don't restart counting..." was a direct response to my "What do you wish was done differently?" and I lost the conversation thread in between checking notifications.

I understand that Powell is disfavored nowadays but she remains relevant as a showcase for the intense credulity many showcased at the time (including at the highest level of government). I recognize her existence is inconvenient for those who wish to believe election fraud allegations were made in good faith, but it's nevertheless still reality. It's not a weakman if it was enthusiastically endorsed at the time. The water main break story was first publicized by Giuliani claiming they were pulling out suitcases of ballots. Giuliani is also an example of somehow displaying intense credulity (or at least motivated reasoning). The water main break story keeps getting replayed and I still don't understand what the core claim is, aside from just vaguely generating smoke. @zeke5123 said "still hasn’t been fully explained" but I genuinely have no idea which part is missing, which is why my questions were about the investigation and how it could've been done differently.

More comments

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