site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33042 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 17, 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.

8
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I see a lot of dancing around the obvious so far.

Contrapoints, aka Natalie Wynn, is herself a trans woman, i.e. a man. She has spent a large part of her life and her entire career living/identifying/posing as a woman, despite having a Y chromosome and no uterus. When JK Rowling and her buddies over on "TERF Island" say that people with a Y chromosome and no uterus are not women and should not be treated like women, this is a personal affront. It is not taken as an invitation for an academic debate. In an academic debate, a meaningful "yes" requires the possibility of "no". For Natalie, there is no possibility of "no, trans women should not be categorized as women," because accepting that statement would jeopardize her personal identity, her relationships, her career, and her mental well-being.

So why are you calling him 'her'?

My general rule is to use apparent pronouns. Natalie passes, so she gets she/her

I wouldn't call a woman 'he' just because she looks like a dude, though.

It's not just that Contra is a transwoman. She's also proven herself particularly fragile in the face of pushback to even minor criticisms she's made of gender activists. By her own account the trauma she felt when she had a brush with cancelling was....disproportionate (walking around wearing sunglasses cause she thought the real world hated her)

I'd also not trust Lindsay Ellis to give a fair shake for similar reasons.

Thank you for pointing it out. I wanted to bring it up myself but had trouble explaining how her cancelation relates to her argument.

I really wish Lindsay Ellis had quit twitter rather than youtube over that idiocy.

So people can't rationally argue for things that are in their own interest? I grant that it's true that Natalie is unlikely to be persuaded to the belief that she is a man, but does that mean we should automatically disregard her arguments for why she is a woman? Can we disregard any arguments about the existence of God from religious people? Arguments about why cancel culture is bad from people who have been cancelled?

This seems to be really reaching for things that weren't in the above comment. It's not that people can't rationally argue for things that are in their own interest, it's that they can't be trusted to do so. That doesn't mean we should automatically disregard her arguments, but it does provide one explanation why her arguments are so bad when judged on its own merits, in this particular context. And it means one should be extra skeptical of their arguments and look out for sleights of hand that allow them to gerrymander the desired results, since the desired results are the only allowable ones that the person is likely to engineer their arguments around.

Can we disregard any arguments about the existence of God from religious people?

Presuming "religious people" refers to people who lack the ability to be convinced of the nonexistence of God, rather than merely people who follow or believe in some religion, we can't automatically disregard such arguments, but certainly it would explain why their arguments are so bad.

Arguments about why cancel culture is bad from people who have been cancelled?

Being "canceled" doesn't automatically imply that one has a dogmatic belief that "cancel culture" is bad. Plenty of people who have been "canceled" believe that their own "cancellation" is bad for the specifics around their own "cancellation" but that the general concept is okay. Heck, I think JK Rowling is one of them, though I'm not sure she's made any specific comments about "cancel culture" in the past. So this analogy doesn't really work.

Sure they can, but it's a big ask. IMO discourse is at its best when everyone just lays out their bias and self-interest in clear terms and stands by it. Being honest about your stake is marginally easier than trying to represent someone else's. And representing everyone's at once, as many demand as the baseline standard for decency, seems outright impossible to me.

So people can't rationally argue for things that are in their own interest?

I am sure it's possible, but most people really can't. Putting emotion and personal stake aside is a really hard thing to do, especially when your peers have been whipping fervor into you by drumbeating night and day that any opposition to you is tantamount to attempted genocide.

So, no, the vast majority of people are motivated reasoning at all times. This is usually okay if we can pit the two opposing motivated reasoners against each other on equal ground, but this is less and less possible these days thanks to the proliferation of biased platforms and speakers who aren't at all interested in engaging with anything except an echo chamber.

No, my point is that if you see someone who is otherwise intelligent and clear-thinking make uncharacteristic fallacies and bad arguments on a specific topic, and that topic is something that they have a strong vested interest in, and they did not argue themselves into that vested interest, then you should have a strong prior that their vested interest is causing their bad arguments.

I will note that the best religious apologists tend to be converts. This is not a coincidence.

You're obviously right of course. (I've never heard of "A meaningful 'yes' requires the possibility of 'no'". Thanks, that's good.) But I guess psychological arguments aren't something I have much interest in, and indeed they're one of my pet peeves from the Left. In my experience, woke people LOVE to psychologize the "real" reasons their opponents are claiming XYZ, and then using that (hypothesized) "real" motivation as a reason to dismiss their opponents' substantive arguments. I also don't see why someone couldn't have both a very strong psychological reason to believe something and provide good arguments for believing in it, so I'd rather just evaluate someone's arguments on the merits than speculate as to their motivations.

But I guess psychological arguments aren't something I have much interest in

I don't particularly like them either, but in this case it seems like there's a bunch of people sitting around going, "Huh, her other videos are usually pretty good. I wonder why this one sucks?" and once you ask the question like that it becomes clear what happened.

Yeah, nah. Doesn't have any good videos. I'm aware of this person since even before the transition and the arguments then and now weren't that good. They were ok-ish if you already believed all the premises, otherwise not that compelling.

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