site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32576 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 1, 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.

9
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

cognitive research has shown that many farm animals (cows, sheep, chickens come to mind) show many signs of intelligence similar to young children and pet animals

If you said pigs I would agree. But those examples are of very dumb animals. Chickens are dumb and extremely mean.

But sure, some food animals are of comparable intelligence to some pet animals. That's why I'm okay with Koreans eating dogs and Europeans eating horses. I find our meat taboos in America to be ridiculous. Legalize horse meat and the hunting of feral horses. Animals have virtually no moral worth so let's get them on the dinner table.

How can you categorically say that animals have no moral worth? Is this axiomatic, or do you have justification?

They are actually most likely coherent in their own beliefs, also categorizing dumb humans in the same way. I would place money down that they don't apply this to stupid fetuses though.

You know, you are making a lot of low effort comments complaining about the nature of the discussion and users here. If you don't like the discussions, move on. Or else participate and do your part to provide value. Yes, sometimes shitty comments get more upvotes than a lengthy, well-thought effortpost. That's just the nature of fickle audience sentiment.

Is this guy just going to necroed threads to look for wrongthink? Tourists are fine but this seems like the prelude to some lefty discord invading and calling us nazis.

Upvotes don't mean anything and the parent comment he was referring to has just as many upvotes (and also significantly more downvotes) so the higher-effort post got more engagement just less agreement (or for whatever reason people downvote comments for). Does he even know that?

Also what's with all these deleted comments, I swear I see more and more deleted comments than I used to. I'm tempted to start quoting the entire comment just so the context of the conversation is retained.

You're telling me man. This forum is proof of what Nietzche posited that all logic is just a cope for our already inbuilt preferences. People don't have a logical reason to dismiss veganism or animal intelligence, they just like meat, and so their arguments follow that. Rationalism is a sham.

Vegans confidently assert the ethical violation involved with eating meat or using animal products. Following their good example I will similarly assert the almost complete lack of ethical concerns regarding meat.

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