site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35591 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 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.

13
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Correct. Which is why we legally

treat people as innocent at that point. But that still doesn't mean you are gonna necessarily want OJ Simpson marrying your sister for example.

Accusations are not near enough evidence to lock someone up, they might be enough evidence to behave differently around that person.

  • -11

Accusations should be given as much weight as the cost of making the accusation and the benefit of making the accusation.

Seems unworkable in a social space. Its trivial for me to tell you Bob stole my wallet and i will certainly gain social status for revealing a thief.

The weight should probably be based on how well you know/trust me and how well you know/trust Bob and whether anyine else has said Bob is a thief or if i lie about people beaing thieves before?

Accusations are not near enough evidence to lock someone up, they might be enough evidence to behave differently around that person.

Should one also be more wary of Trump supporters, given the accusations leveled at them by Smollett?

Should one tread lightly near members of Phi Kappa Psi frat, in light of what Rolling Stone had to say about them?

You can be wary about what they said themselves. Take a look through the evidence Chris himself put out there. Including apologizing for sexually inappropriate behaviour.

He even says the accusations have some truth with embellishments in his emails asking for support. He probably osn't a sexual predator, but he does seem to have a habit of shitting where he eats and sometimes misjudging situations.

He doesn't seem to be a bad guy, just to be clear. But there is enough smoke he himself admits to that if my 25yo daughter said she had a date with him, i would be wary.

I would be wary because I don’t want my daughter dating a boorish fellow (which is different from dating a sexual abuser).

Sure, like i say he almost certainly is not a sexual predator in that regard.

Then again, they might be not. Particularly when they're made in the midst of a moral panic.

Indeed, but if you read what Chris himself has put out there,his behavior is not exactly exemplary. In his own evidence packet it contains things about him having to apologise about making sexual comments and advances inappropriately. Where he himself acknowledges it at the time.

Is he a "sexual predator"? Probably not. He is probably what would have been described as a cad or a rake. Should he have been fired? Probably not. Though maybe telling him to stop shitting where he eats would have been good advice for him to hear.

"Not exemplary" under which moral framework? I happen to be pretty trad when it comes to sex and relationships, so I might agree, but the kind of people attacking Avellone don't seem to be trad, and don't seem to have a coherent critique of fuckboys as a general concept.

I find the whole idea of "not shitting where you eat" bizarre, inhumane, and neurotic. Several of my friends got happily married off of a workplace relationship, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

Ah lets clarify, pursuing a longterm relationship at work has risks but probably worth it.

But pursuing multiple short term entanglements at work exponentially increases the risks of some sort of fallout. Plenty of people do it of course, but the more break ups the more times you are rolling the dice.

Fair enough, I'll sign on to that.

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