site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32536 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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In this NYT article, race isn't mentioned, so I assumed it was either a black-on-black or black-on-white killing, but apparently it was white-on-black! It's unusual for the NYT to not mention race in such a situation. Could it be that they're finally downplaying all races in their

crime reporting, and not just the ones that it's offensive to speak negatively about? That sounds too good to be true, but I want to believe.

What our hapless marine did not understand is that homeless people are basically aristocracy. The correct, society prescribed and legally enforced thing to do when a homeless crazy person goes on a rant and starts throwing things and yelling is to back away slowly. If you can't (in this case, because you're in a subway car), you just cringe and endure it and hope it doesn't go beyond that. You don't make eye contact, and you certainly don't fight -- as the old saying goes, if you lose you go to the hospital and if you win you go to jail.

Here's a novel suggestion on the appropriate response to being screamed at by a belligerent vagrant:

I don't know about you, but if I could spend $100 to keep somebody from being strangled to death, I'd happily hand over $100. So if you see someone in distress in public, before you strangle them to death, consider just giving them $100.

Some might suggest that this might not be the best incentive structure to line up, but those someone's simply don't understand that someone "having a mental health crisis" is both sacred and simply cannot respond to incentives.

So that guy makes it rain every time he sees a homeless person?

There are so many ways to help homeless people; from giving money to nonprofits, to volunteering, etc.

The smug response of 'you should just give them a hundred', is nothing but smug self-righteousness. He's not making anything better, he's just making himself feel superior.

The incentive structure is not the point. The point is that the person sending the tweet has a good heart.

A heart that good needs an Aztec priest to be fully appreciated.

Which brings us back around to what appears to be an irreconcilable difference in worldviews. I don't regard someone that thinks giving cash to belligerent vagrants is a good plan as having a good heart anymore than I regard someone that leaves some treats out for grizzly bears as having a good heart.

I think OP's point is that their actions are to broadcast the image having a good heart, not necessarily actually having one.

I always get amused, darkly, when these people happily place benefit of the doubt on the person demonstrating their disregard for other people's interests and safety. The guy asking for $100 is assumed to have a nigh-angelic nature, while the other person must be either greedy or murderous to refuse?

Other forms as well:

"So what if they broke into your house? They just want your stuff!"

"If someone tries to take your car, let them. It gets worse if you fight back!"

"Shoplifting is a victimless crime! If someone needs something so badly that they'll steal it, it's probably better to let them go."

There are certain lines that are generally understood that, if crossed, means other people will assume you mean them harm or otherwise pose a threat. And they ain't going to try to read your mind to figure out if you are merely crazy or desperate or in need or have the will to do them grievous bodily injury or even kill.

And as soon as I've updated to believing that you pose a significant risk of harm to me or a loved one, the calculation in my mind isn't a binary between "Pay $100 or strangle them to death." Its "Do I have to fight this guy? Can I escape? What will he do if I try to walk away? Does he have a weapon?" and "how quickly can I incapacitate him?"

I'm reasoning under uncertainty here. If I thought that handing over $100 would be guaranteed to de-escalate the situation, and the guy would go on his way and bother me no more maybe that's the better option.

But there's literally no way for me to know that, so I have to work off the evidence I have in front of me, which is someone acting erratically and making demands which is evidence that they are probably dangerous, and may escalate if I try to placate them.

So yeah, fuck false dilemmas.

I always get amused, darkly, when these people happily place benefit of the doubt on the person demonstrating their disregard for other people's interests and safety. The guy asking for $100 is assumed to have a nigh-angelic nature, while the other person must be either greedy or murderous to refuse?

The Rittenhouse case was particularly silly.

Rittenhouse shot people who did exactly as he did - bring a gun to a volatile situation - but he had far more evidence of acting in good faith and non-aggressively (honestly, the fact that he was really walking around cleaning up graffiti seems like the sort of thing a conservative hack writer would add to make him more sympathetic).

But somehow he's damned.

In retrospect that kid is OBSCENELY lucky that there were multiple cameras showing the series of events and thus made it pretty damn clear that he wasn't an aggressor.

Absent that, he'd probably be in prison, possibly forever.

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