site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34492 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 Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A bit meta - but why is nobody here talking about - congressional hearings about twitter files, new January 6th footage - those look like a prime culture war fodder. And yet it is suspiciously silent here? Personally my reason is that I can't just wrap my head around what is going on really.

I’ll share something about the J6 footage. The video shows that the “shaman” Jacob Chansly was a non-violent protestor on good terms with the police whom guided him through the corridors of the capitol. He is on video praying for the police and telling everyone to leave peacefully after reading Trump’s tweet. Also persuasive is the fact that only 106 officers were injured, whereas 180+ officers were injured when the progressive insurrectionists in 2020 attempted to seize the White House (burning down a piece of history in the process, a church of God). Remember that the media then laughed because Trump was placed in a safe location.

This only interests me a little though. What’s more interesting and scary is talking to an older relative who refuses to even watch the tape. Why? Because the news pushed stories to his iPhone immediately after Tucker’s monologue (which has 4mil views only on YouTube plus everyone who watches JRE plus etc). The News pushed debunks, or perhaps prebunks, in an attempt to inoculate their subjects viewers from ever being persuaded by Tucker’s video. None of it had anything that even vaguely amounts to a debunking. If Chansley was indeed violent, it should be as trivial as publishing the clip. The shaman didn’t exactly blend in with the crowd. But in fact, they can’t debunk it, so they just attack Tucker with persuasive linguistic programming.

I also noticed how insanely uninformed my relative was on what happened in the Greater Insurrection of 2020. His entire memory of the event is “Trump dispersed peaceful protestors for a photo op”. The media is so crafty and so consistent in their messaging, it leads to such resilient disinformation. What, the President shouldn’t be able to speak a few miles from his house, about the piece of history insurrectionist burned down? That’s clearly insane.

If Chansley was indeed violent

Violence is not an element of the crime Chansley pleaded guilty to, obstruction of an official proceeding. So it is irrelevant whether he was violent.

  • -14

Do you believe that is the normal punishment for such crime?

No, but do you believe that the official 12th-amendment electoral vote count is the normal official proceeding for such crime?

No but it doesn’t seem to me much worse compared to say interfering with the advice and consent for a SCOTUS justice.

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