site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35007 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

By more than two-to-one, Americans support U.S. government banning TikTok from Pew Research

More than twice as many Americans support the U.S. government banning TikTok as oppose it (50% vs. 22%), though a sizable share (28%) are not sure, according to a new Pew Research Center survey that comes amid intensifying scrutiny of the Chinese-owned video-sharing app.

Support for a government ban on TikTok is higher among Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party than among Democrats and Democratic leaners (60% vs. 43%). It’s particularly high among conservative Republicans (70%) and less so among moderate or liberal Republicans (46%). Among Democrats, conservatives and moderates are more supportive of a ban than liberals (49% vs. 36%).

Older Americans are much more supportive of banning the platform than younger ones: 71% of those ages 65 and older support it, compared with 54% of those ages 50 to 64 and fewer than half of adults under 50. Those under 30 stand out for being the only age group in which more people oppose banning the platform than support it (46% vs. 29%).

I can't say I'm very surprised but it's more that I assumed it was getting banned either way. I'd be interested to see the trend over time to see if there's been some manufacturing of consent.

I think that sort of support (especially since the GOP is onboard and not playing criticizing) basically gives the government all the cover they need to actually do it but we'll see.

I must admit I'm a bit surprised, both in the direction and the magnitude of the direction. A priori, I would have guessed that the strong norms of free speech and personal liberty would have made it so that Americans would generally be against a government-mandated ban on TikTok. The trends between Republicans/Democrats and conservatives/liberals doesn't surprise me, at least, since I would expect the former to be more prioritizing of stuff like protection of children from social media brainrot and protection of US citizen data from Chinese governments over freedom of people to use social media services that could be harmful to themselves and others. On a personal level, I think TikTok is probably a net negative both to US society and to US citizens, but I also think that the government setting a precedent of banning TikTok is probably a much bigger net negative to US society and to US citizens.

American attitudes towards liberty are all over the place. For example, from what I understand only a small minority of Americans support fully legalizing cocaine for adult consumption, even though one might think that few things are more of a bedrock of liberty than the right to put whatever one wants into one's own body as long as it does not immediately and directly endanger others (like, for example, swallowing a bomb that has a timer and then boarding a plane would).

I think that the widespread perception that TikTok is a non-serious toy for teenagers also works against it. Social norms already generally support censoring content for youngsters while making it available to adults. Of course the reality is that even if TikTok gets banned, every 12 year old with a smartphone will still be able to easily go online and see hardcore pornography if he or she wants to. But even if someone wanted to, there would be no practical way to prevent minors from viewing pornography. In a war on porn, porn would win easily and decisively even more than drugs have won the war on drugs. On the other hand, it is relatively easy to ban a specific company like TikTok, which has been widely pilloried because "won't somebody please think of the children" and is run by a widely disliked country.

even though one might think that few things are more of a bedrock of liberty than the right to put whatever one wants into one's own body as long as it does not immediately and directly endanger others

I mean, who is “one” in this “one might think” construction? You might think that, but actually it appears that the vast majority of people have a very different conception of liberty than the maximalist conception that you are using here. Surely if there are “bedrock” elements of liberty, you could imagine at least a handful of rights that are more centrally important to liberty than the right to snort cocaine. Even if you think that’s a super important one, I would think that you would recognize a number of other ones - freedom of speech, freedom of private property, freedom to vote, etc. - that are more crucial than… “freedom of ingestion”.

I do recognize more important ones, which is why I said "one might think that few things are" instead of "one might think that nothing is".

Within the framework of supporting liberal values I can see no rational argument for banning the freedom of ingestion. I understand the authoritarian argument for banning recreational drugs. Authoritarians in general are fine with using the power of the state to create the kinds of societies that they want even if it means substantially restricting personal freedom. While I am not an authoritarian, I can imagine why if I did have a preference for authoritarianism, I might be in favor of banning drugs in order to sculpt society into what I wished it to be. However, in a country that prides itself on liberty the bans on recreational drugs seem nonsensical and hypocritical to me.

Many conservatives in particular are guilty of such hypocrisy. Every argument that I can think of in favor of the right to bear arms can be applied also to the right to consume recreational drugs. Even the argument that "guns help one to protect one's freedom from the government" has a parallel argument in favor of legal drugs: "legal drugs can help one to get to know oneself better and to achieve insights, which in turn increases the individual's ability to resist government power". Someone might argue that most drug users do not use drugs for these purposes. But then, if push came to shove and the boogaloo started probably most gun owners would not join a militia and go fight the government either. But some would.

"legal drugs can help one to get to know oneself better and to achieve insights, which in turn increases the individual's ability to resist government power"

I find this every bit as specious as the people who talk about drug legalization in terms of “the government wants to stop me from putting a particular plant in my body.” Those people know as well as I do that crystal meth is not a plant, but rather a complex chemical concoction literally designed to turn a normal person into an aggressive and unstoppable violence machine; and you know as well as I do that PCP and fentanyl are not used by anybody to “achieve insights”. That’s not what they’re for, and it’s not a plausible effect of those drugs. Using a justification that makes perfect sense to justify, say, LSD, and trying to smuggle in the legalization of PCP and fentanyl and meth… that’s dishonest. It’s the epitome of the non-central fallacy, and I trust that you are smart enough to be employing that argument cynically, rather than actually believing in it.

you can address drug addiction induced violence by punishing the violent people, its unfair to ban the drug thereby punishing nonviolent users.

No, you cannot, because deterrence does not work when everyone thinks "well I can just not be violent on drugs".

Imagine being the victim of that extremely predictable and preventable violence, and being told, “It’s fine, we needed to wait until after he did the thing we all knew he was going to do. Sorry it had to be you that it happened to.” If it were me I’d sure be pretty fucking miffed that nobody did what needed to be done before I became the victim of violence.

Im pretty sure that cocaine does not turn all of its users into violent criminals, but lets imagine that it does. In that case my response is that I don't want my tax money going to contribute to the state trying to eliminate this trade because I would rather keep that money to myself and do something else with it.

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