site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34435 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 New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

One of the arguments made in the 18th and 19th centuries for restricting the franchise to male landowners with large estates was that being politically informed was the equivalent of a full-time job and that only a wealthy individual who did not have to work for a living had the free time to learn about the issues of the day and make reasonable voting decisions. Such a position eventually became politically untenable given the trends of industrialization and urbanization, but I think it was certainly an understandable concern.

For my part, I try to read or skim several articles from one of a few news aggregator sites every morning, as well as keep up with scientific advancements if possible. If a topic piques my interest, I may dig a little deeper and find the original source. I also usually try to read books relevant to current events as they pop up (e.g. pandemics, the history of Ukraine, AI). This all adds up to less than an hour each day and has a much higher information density than watching cable news, so it doesn't seem like an unreasonable expectation to me.

For my part, I try to read or skim several articles from one of a few news aggregator sites every morning

For an unrelated reason last night I went looking for daily podcasts that cover the day's top headlines in several broad categories -- like the sections of a newspaper -- in a few minutes. I found a couple, but there are shockingly few of these.

For about a year I've been listening to the BBC's global new report, but it has too much magazine-like filler, is too keen on pushing narratives, and releases several episodes per day. I was hoping to find 2-3 more compact headlines+lead paragraphs only podcasts from different sources. I have yet to go through the ones I found, but I think there's a market for something like this:

Monday-Friday, a 10-minute podcast that goes through 5-6 top news headlines from one source. The source changes everyday, rotating through 5-10 sources, so you get some different perspectives on the same big stories. Maybe on the weekend, 10-20 minutes going through some niche subject headlines, like sports, entertainment, tech, etc.

For my part, I try to read or skim several articles from one of a few news aggregator sites every morning, as well as keep up with scientific advancements if possible. If a topic piques my interest, I may dig a little deeper and find the original source. I also usually try to read books relevant to current events as they pop up (e.g. pandemics, the history of Ukraine, AI). This all adds up to less than an hour each day and has a much higher information density than watching cable news, so it doesn't seem like an unreasonable expectation to me.

Speaking of news aggregators, I created https://pubstack.site , an RSS aggregator mostly focused on substack blogs

One of the arguments made in the 18th and 19th centuries for restricting the franchise to male landowners with large estates

Was it ever really restricted to 'large' estates, of the kind that had full time managers ?

I don't think that was the argument used. Just that you don't want losers and proletariat and such having any say in how your society is run. Look how it all ended up in the end.

One of the arguments made in the 18th and 19th centuries for restricting the franchise to male landowners with large estates was that being politically informed was the equivalent of a full-time job an

I don't think that was the argument used. Just that you don't want losers and proletariat and such having any say in how your society is run.

Antebellum figures in the Deep South used a version of that argument (laced with an assumption of elite superiority) -- civilization is a product of the leisure class. This argument hasn't been debunked IMO. Serfs/slaves were made unnecessary by technological improvements.

However, more common was the argument that the franchise should be restricted to those with a fixed stake in the country, who wouldn't simply vote themselves unsustainable handouts from the treasury. See: the Putney Debates.

I don't think that was the argument used. Just that you don't want losers and proletariat and such having any say in how your society is run. Look how it all ended up in the end.

It ended with empires over which the sun never sets.

The British empire didn’t have universal male suffrage until it was very much in the tail end of its run.

The way I parsed the gp comment was what the lack of suffrage lead to

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