site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34389 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 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 Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This exercise has been gaining some traction on Twitter among anti-wokes, with some even calling it “demonic.” That’s a bit much, but it is potentially an interesting exercise, and one I’d like to apply somewhat rational heuristics to “solve.”

My approach requires some assumptions:

  1. The goal is to both survive and reproduce.

  2. They arrive instantly at this new planet.

  3. This new planet is ecologically identical to Earth.

The crux of the exercise, in this view, is to balance survivability with reproductive capacity. Survivability can be the ability to provide calories, medicine, make fire, or a host of other skills. Additionally, one must consider second order effects; one man is sufficient for reproduction, but having one man and seven pregnant women will probably not produce enough calories to survive.

I am going to go through each of the potential participants and provide initial thoughts:

  1. An accountant with a substance abuse problem: no clear sex signal here, as women make up 60% of accountants, but men make up 66% of substance abusers, according to quick Googling. Accountancy is not a relevant skill set, and provides no info as to physical prowess. Relapse means little initial productive capacity.

  2. A militant African American medical student: a real standout pick. Medical student tells me that they have some degree of medical knowledge, above average intelligence (even accounting for AA), and militancy leads me to think male. Almost definitely going.

  3. A 33 year old female Native American manager who speaks no English: a potentially fertile woman, but potential for communications issues, and, despite the stereotype I think is being played with, little signal that she would be “in touch with nature” or anything. No directly applicable skills in management.

  4. The accountants pregnant wife: a must take; guaranteed fertile woman. This also tells us the accountant is almost definitely male and not impotent, and likely both are late 20s/early 30s. No other noted traits or skills.

  5. A famous novelist with a physical disability: this person ranks low on survivability and reproducibility. I don’t want to burden the group with a disabled, and likely old, man or woman.

  6. A 21 year old female Muslim international student: a great pick. International students are selected for intelligence to some extent, and a 21 year old is likely to be both able bodied and fertile. I can’t imagine Islam will impede usefulness or cooperation too much.

  7. A homophobic Spanish clergyman: I would expect old, and potential to take beliefs in chastity to an extraterrestrial grave. No discernible skills either.

  8. Female Movie Star, recent victim of SA: probably attractive and physically fit, probably older, little in the way of useful skills. I don’t see a compelling value-add.

  9. Racist cop: almost definitely a high-T, physically fit male. Maybe the least agreeable of the bunch, but also likely to have one of the highest survivability quotients. Someone needs to provide calories, do physical labor, and ward off predators. This guy may be the best option.

  10. Gay, vegetarian, male pro athlete: the most physically capable, and thenceforth likely to be the most useful. Much will depend on sacrificing beliefs like eating meat to survive or aiding in reproduction with females. Could also help identify certain vegetables, but that seems like a stretch.

  11. Asian, orphaned, 12 year old boy: does not come with immediate usefulness in procreation, and probably diminished capacity for manual labor compared to other male options. I guess likely to have a higher IQ, but would he even make it to adult development if he’s taking up a spot? Maybe. There’s also a potential benefit to staggering age to provide better odds of a potent male for the next generation.

  12. 60 year old Jewish university administrator: probably intelligent, but statistically likely to be a post menopausal woman. The downside of lower average physical ability without the fertility upside. Could potentially be an organizing force or, if male, still potent, but that’s a risk.

In sum, I will take participants 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, and 11.

I did not place significant value on administrative or managerial skills, as I do not expect them to translate well (I am basing this off of watching Survivor!) and I expect other competent members to fill these roles.

EDIT: why did I think #2 was female? Even so, the final list doesn't change.

  1. An accountant with a substance abuse problem

  2. A militant African American medical student

  3. A 33 year old female Native American manager who speaks no English

  4. The accountants pregnant wife

  5. A famous novelist with a physical disability

  6. A 21 year old female Muslim international student

  7. A Spanish clergyman who is against homosexuality

  8. Female movie star, recent victim of SA

  9. Racist cop

  10. Gay, vegetarian, male pro athlete

  11. Asian, orphaned, 12 year old boy

  12. 60 year old Jewish university administrator

Definitely taking all five women: 2, 3, 4, 6, 8. Then we have to maximize the diversity of the three males that go with them. Ideally, all fifteen pairings should be viable (taking 4+4 would make it 16 pairings, but we're limited by the women's ability to give birth).

  • the accountant might be upset about sharing his wife and his addiction might be crippling

  • the clergyman might be celibate (and pedo or gay in denial or asexual), might refuse to have sex with a victim of SA or sleep with many women

  • the gay athlete might be unable to ejaculate into a woman

  • the racist cop might refuse to have sex with women of color (at least 3 out of 5)

  • the old administrator might have erectile disfunction

  • the novelist's disability might be congenital

Only the boy is a must pick. He'll be indoctrinated into the whole "keep the women constantly pregnant by different fathers" routine and will provide natural leadership for the generation of children when older colonists are dead.

From the first round, I'll exclude the novelist and the administrator, as they are likelier to be physically frail. We need healthy males to support the colony, this leaves us with two out of four:

  • the accountant might be upset about sharing his wife and his addiction might be crippling

  • the clergyman might be celibate (and pedo or gay in denial or asexual), might refuse to have sex with a victim of SA or share the women

  • the gay athlete might be unable to ejaculate into a woman

  • the racist cop might refuse to have sex with women of color (at least 3 out of 5)

I'll take my chances with the cop (who might be needed to, uhm, reduce the militance of the medical student), as he might be the second fittest male. Racist plantation owners still had sex with their slaves, and modern racists are usually of a "I have nothing against individuals of color, I don't like them as a group" variety.

The athlete has good genes but will be a natural challenger to the cop's authority. Women will feel safe with him, so they might form a united front against the cop, shove him out of the airlock and end up dying out after one generation. I won't take that risk.

Between the priest and the accountant, I think the priest might have more of a spine. The accountant might love his wife and hate to see it having sex with the cop and the Asian kid when he grows up, but the priest might consider the whole setup a sin, a hell on Earth in space, while the accountant might be swayed by having access to four more women. So, my final pick is:

  1. An accountant with a substance abuse problem

  2. A militant African American medical student

  3. A 33 year old female Native American manager who speaks no English

  4. The accountants pregnant wife

  5. A 21 year old female Muslim international student

  6. Female movie star, recent victim of SA

  7. Racist cop

  8. Asian, orphaned, 12 year old boy

The people producing this question weren’t thinking about reproducibility or survivability in the slightest. The idea was to pick the most oppressed groups.

Was it? I thought it was to demonstrate the assumptions people about details not provided (e.g., the black medic being a woman or the accountant being a man).

The accountant is assumed to be man because he has a pregnant wife. Unless it's a lesbian whose wife conceived via sperm donor, which is not "assumption of details", it's actively violating Occam's razor.

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