site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   37989 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 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.

11
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As a lefty: It is a real shooting fish in a barrel type exercise, but it works 95% to score cheap points.

If I get into a "Heated Exchange In The Free Market Of Ideas" and my interlocuter says "woke" or "pronouns" or any other conservative buzz word outside of a conservative safe space, I can make them look real stupid by forcing the conversation to a screeching halt and having them explain it to me.

Either they try in good faith and look stupid, or they blow right through and look disingenuous.

That's not quite the own you think it is. Or you might just be conversing with too dull of a people. When my conversant plays dumb with a concept/memeplex they would be usually advancing I just flip the script on them and say "well If you don't know what it is, then it must not be that important, lets disregard the people who care about it"

This doesn't work, because in this judo situation you brought it up. I win if it never comes up, you lose if you mention it.

This is the blow through conversation path, where I get to say that you don't actually believe anything and blah blah etcetra.

There really is no winning move in this situation, because the memeplex is too lefty for you to escape. Eg, you can do the Walsh bit, then I deploy the Chair::Horse attack and laugh at you.

None of this means anything, of course, but it does lower your status to the audience. 's why guys like Shapiro and Walsh and every other (competent) populist right figure are so carful about never being interviewed or debating on anything but a friendly platform; and it's why Trump is so effective. He actually has the complete lack of belief in anything to blow through a god damn bank vault.

I understand why explaining "woke" stops the conversation, but what's wrong with explaining "pronouns?"

Volunteering preferred pronouns, or asking someone what pronouns to use are partisan behaviors. People saying it isn't partisan doesn't matter. Similarly, a Christian asking to pray for you or asking you if you've prayed about something would probably annoy you.

Why do I look stupid?

I mean in that instance I as an atheist do think the polite thing to do is thank them for praying for me or do it as well if they ask. It mightn't mean much to me but it does it him so why not, and the same applies to pronouns.

This is just you arguing in bad faith, and it only makes them "look disingenuous" in the eyes of your fellow lefties.

Why argue with the outgroup, if not to win status with the ingroup? /s

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