site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32543 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.

You have my sympathy for your experiences with the mentally ill homeless, but you are still being played by the media. The media are calling him schizophrenic as part of their campaign to paint him as innocent, not just because he is out of his mind and might not be cognizant of right and wrong, but also because schizophrenia is a mental illness characterised by a break between the mental model of reality and the factual model of reality and by slowed thinking and lowered motivation. However you can find a doctor who will diagnose just about any man with disordered thinking as schizophrenic, even if they have taken drugs known for causing psychosis, like Neely. Bam, instant sympathy. You would be better off using words like psychotic, or just the usual crazy, lunatic, nuts, bonkers etc

Tldr: schizophrenics are often losers yes, but they are rarely if ever violent and you should not be afraid of them or angry at them, or lump them in with other insane people riding the subway, aka New Yorkers.

Well..schizophrenics are not particularly violent.

An average white schizophrenic is about 10x* as likely to harm another person than a random white person.

Whether in blacks this is multiplied with their basic 10x homicidal propensity is unknown to me..

*According to data on a Finnish sample of 1500 homicides of which 90 were committed by schizophrenics..

Whether in blacks this is multiplied with their basic 10x homicidal propensity is unknown to me..

I think that this is unfair. First, because the black homicide rate is not so high as 10 times that of whites. Second, because the vast majority of the homicides committed by black people are committed by a very small subset of black people that moves up the entire race's averages. I guess you could argue that the existence of that subset is an indicator that the entire race has some sort of elevated homicidal propensity, but the way that you put it is simplistic.

First, because the black homicide rate is not so high as 10 times that of whites.

It's about 7.2x that of non-blacks, assuming 13/52.

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