site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35020 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 New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This comment has received at least three reports, with some commenters saying they've reported this comment.

I am responding with a modhat to remind the reporters that this is a forum for testing shady thinking, which means that by default even shady thinking is allowed. While concrete threats of violence are in many instances illegal and would in any event violate our ruleset (at minimum by excluding the targets of such threats from the discussion), opinions regarding what might arguably justify violence are not the same as threats of violence.

From the reports, @Goodguy stands accused of being "pro shooting up schools" and sounding "really unhinged." From @NolanE's comment on the other reported comment:

It seems to justify school shootings (including young children) because of workplace toxicity.

But this is uncharitable and suggests an aversion to thinking charitably about the motives of violent people, which--if we actually want to prevent school shootings, or even threats of school shootings--it might be helpful for us to think about clearly and accurately. @Goodguy says that violence is "not necessarily a good reaction" but an "understandable" one. This is supported with a characterization of public education that many people disagree with (some, here in the comments), but not one that is presented as the only or even the correct perspective. Nothing about this comment "justifies" school shootings--only attempts to explain them.

There is a famous story about John Adams defending British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trials. It has become the center of essays, books, television productions... Adams does not seem to have even been excessively sympathetic toward the soldiers, though he was certainly accused of such sympathies. Rather, he just regarded it as an injustice for the soldiers to go to trial unrepresented, and he had some rational doubts about the stories he was hearing. In the end, many of the soldiers were actually acquitted, because there was good evidence that they weren't involved or at fault, but this evidence would not have come to light had public opinion prevailed and the soldiers simply been lynched. Still, there were some people who continued to regard Jon Adams as "pro shooting up Americans" as a result.

In hopes of throwing reporters a bit of a bone, I want to say something like "@Goodguy's comment could be higher effort," but even that I think would not be quite right. If @Goodguy had written a higher-effort version of this comment, I think it would only have strengthened the objections; the comment as written does not excuse or defend school shootings, only explains (some of) them in a way that could potentially be probative of root causes. That it does so succinctly helps, rhetorically, to strengthen the idea that shooters are not being defended as, well, the "good guys"--just as humans responding to an arguably coercive environment.

If anyone using this website ever turns out to commit a serious crime, I will be very sad about that! But I'm not going to moderate people for trying to understand violence, on grounds that understanding violence might lead to violence. Because I think the opposite is at least as likely to be true--that honest attempts to understand violence could help us to prevent it.

Obviously that’s rubbish. School shootings are neither justifiable nor “understandable” by any sane metric, and there is in fact no real distinction between those two phrases.

How can anybody “understand” an adult shooting a few 6 year olds, based on “workplace hostility” is beyond me. They aren’t workers for one thing. The shooter often has no relationship to the school.

(Maybe @Goodguy wanted to talk about workspaces in particular he didn’t. He preferred to understand school shooters.)

You vaguely admit that he has no real justification when you say were he try to explain his position it would be worse for him.

Nice piece about John Adams though, albeit totally unrelated. After all I didn’t suggest a mob take out @Goodguy, or that there be an online lynching, but reported him to whatever travesty of due process this site enforces. I myself got a 2 day ban for a perfectly good analogy a while back. So banning can be done. You can do if you try.

And the whole lecturing tone is a bit off, isn’t it? The weird defense of goodguy’s post could perhaps be a bit less verbose, and not dwell all that much on rather irrelevant American history, but it drips with unearned condescension.

Anyways I don’t see any way to delete myself from this community, so feel free to ban me. This is to be clear because I don’t want to be associated with y’all. I can see why Scott cut the posters here out of the loop.

Obviously that’s rubbish. School shootings are neither justifiable nor “understandable” by any sane metric, and there is in fact no real distinction between those two phrases.

There is a huge difference between "justifiable" and "understandable." We often understand why people do things without believing they were justified.

I myself got a 2 day ban for a perfectly good analogy a while back.

You caught a ban for offering your "analogy" in bad faith.

Anyways I don’t see any way to delete myself from this community, so feel free to ban me.

You know you can just... go away, right?

Honestly, it seems to me that you have taken an impractically high degree of offense at Goodguys post. I think it takes only a small helping of charity to see his post as reasonable and motte-adequate. What exactly did he do wrong? Are school schootings a unique evil where one may not play devils advocate even on the motte?

I can see why Scott cut the posters here out of the loop.

Scott is still on good terms with The Motte AFAIK. He even offered to host ads for the site after our migration. We parted ways because people who disliked the Culture War thread harassed him and IRL swatted him.

How often do comments get reported here? I feel like I pretty often seen thinly disguised calls and sometimes undisguised calls for violence here.

Actually I am a bit surprised given this site's political leanings that anyone on this site cares about school shootings enough to be upset by something that describes them as in some cases understandable. But then, I like being surprised by this place.

If I were to summarize my objection to the op comment - "extraordinary cllaims require extraordinary evidence". I can understand why OJ Simpson would kill his wife. But i think there is a lot of information missing before I can come to the conclusion of "of course he would shoot up the school".

i think there is a lot of information missing before I can come to the conclusion of "of course he would shoot up the school".

Well, OP's suggestion was:

being forced by the state to spend eight hours a day at a containment center run by a bunch of glorified babysitters

And the conclusion was not "of course"--the conclusion was "I understand."

Do you find stories of prison violence extraordinary? Do you think prison violence is an inescapable fact about imprisonment? You might object that schools are meaningfully distinct from prisons, but if you've never encountered comparisons between schools and prisons before, well, now you have--and I assure you that they are common comparisons. You might say "schools are meant to benefit children" but prisons are arguably meant to benefit criminals (through rehabilitation). You might say "school is not so unpleasant as to justify murder" and I'd say that's true! But no one in this thread has yet said "murder is justified." Only explained one thing that might drive a person to commit murder.

And sure, OP could have said more about it, but the difficulty there is, the more you say about it, the more it sounds like you are trying to claim that the violence is justified, rather than claiming that it is understandable. I didn't mind going to school as a child, but I undertstand that many people find the experience absolutely torturous.

That's an uncharitable re-phrasing of the op comment. He simply calls it "an understandable reaction" to what some would consider involuntary capture, but then qualifies it with the observation that many school shooters appear to kill not only their "captors" but random fellow "inmates" (implying that op believes there's a good chance these shooters are simply unhinged people).

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