site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32487 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.

The only things we know that aren't wish casting is the guy who was restrained had an active felony warrant for assault out for him, and "40 interactions with police", whatever that means. We also know a black, a hispanic and a white spontaneously bonded into a group to restrain this guy over whatever he was doing.

I have few thoughts about how this will shake out in court. But I'm on team "They made the world a better place by one unit" no matter the legal outcome.

Edit: Actually, I noticed a third thing. You know what we usually hear in one of these videos? A crowd of people shouting "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!" "STOP IT!" "YOU'RE HURTING HIM!" We hear none of that. Presumably everyone around saw what went down and thought to themselves "Yeah, that's about right."

So far as I know, there has been exactly zero progress towards a permanent cure for schizophrenia, or towards some treatment or procedure which, administered in childhood, would prevent its appearance.

In my opinion, it is this (as well as some way to switch off the "addictive personality" which deserves as much of a research budget as can be managed. Once these defective brains can be fixed, once and for all rather than with a pricy drug which must be taken every day and has nasty side effects, then our cities can be livable again.

To be honest, I don't expect this within my lifetime, perhaps not within a hundred years. But it must be possible.

I didn't KNOW that there were 3 guys, let alone that only one of them was white! Damn!

I have few thoughts about how this will shake out in court.

My thoughts are that with what's apt to qualify as a "jury of my peers" in New York City, I'd be thinking very hard about whether I have a way to quickly move to a country that won't extradite.

Yeah. You saw my claim below about what the legally correct thing to do in this situation is. Here's a commenter from NYMag asserting basically the same thing, and he clearly things it's a good thing:

It’s basically New York law that if you encounter someone on the train that is mentally unwell and/or unhoused that you either help or you walk away.

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