site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33038 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 Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

rather that there is no evidence of that in this particular case other than the race of the respective parties.

How is there no evidence but there is for the old white guy? What is your evidence the old white guy is racially motivated?

this incident is so unique that there are no previous incidents to draw upon to make an inference.

So unique? Lol. Lmao

https://www.qcnews.com/news/u-s/north-carolina/gaston-county/police-search-for-suspect-after-gastonia-double-shooting/

This just happened yesterday. It’s a regular occurrence actually. But being the hyper rationalist you are, somehow this fact eludes you. Do I really need to start citing some stats from Sailer? You DO realize what the racial dynamics of violent crime are right? Oh but I forgot - only whites are racially motivated when they commit crime against others.

And, again, I see that you have decided to wage the culture war by trying to play gotcha, rather than taking up my invitation to discuss "how to judge such person, both morally and legally

You make the invitation while cowardly evading the issue yourself.

What is your evidence the old white guy is racially motivated?

This is what I said:

  1. The white guy apparently acted out of fear

  2. People often (rationally!) are more fearful of young black males than of other people

  3. Therefore, such a person "might use force against a young black male in a situation where they would not have used force were the victim of a different race"

Note both the tentative nature of the claim, and the weak role played by race as an explanatory factor.

This is what OP said: "blatant case of racial hatred"

Note both the high degree of certainly, and the much stronger claim made re the attitude held by the shooter (hatred, rather than a rational bias) and the role of that attitude (a motive, rather than a contributing factor).

I believe that highly certain, strong claims need to be backed up by more and better evidence than do tentative and weak claims.

Which one of those premises and conclusions do you disagree with?

You DO realize what the racial dynamics of violent crime are right?

  1. Yes, I am aware of the numbers re violent crime. But the issue is not about the numbers; it is about the motive. You can't infer that from total numbers, because if you just go by

Oh but I forgot - only whites are racially motivated when they commit crime against others.

It is very odd to infer that I believe that, given my reference to the Zebra killings.

This just happened yesterday.

You might want to hold back on citing that as evidence, since this article says the kid was hit by bullet fragments, and this one describes him as "firing wildly." A far cry from walking up to a kid and shooting him in the head.

edit:

You make the invitation while cowardly evading the issue yourself.

I would be happy to discuss the issue, which, since you seem to have forgotten, is about how to judge a person who acts out of racial bias, but nevertheless rationally. You have not done that, but rather have confined yourself to discussing whether this particular person is an example of that phenomenon. So, you are the one who is evading the issue.

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