site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31010 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 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.

A 30-year-old pregnant nurse attempted to steal a GPS-tracked rental bike from a young black man right outside her workplace, and when a group of onlookers surrounded her and started filming she had the audacity to start acting strangely, call for help, and briefly cry. Don't worry, justice has been served: she has been identified and suspended, and she will never be okay again.

  • -29

I find it extremely grating because, especially if you're another women, you have to accept it as a timeout since continuing with a (fair) argument or complaint if the other woman is streaming crocodile tears is considered rude and unacceptable.

Why 'especially if you're another woman'? At least you can cry back as a woman. Women’s childish behaviour is socially sanctioned, they are empowered to switch at will between being considered a child or an adult. And if you point this out or talk like you did, as a man, then it’s sexism. For carrying the burden of being the only sane adult in the room, men are called 'emotional cripples' .

At least you can cry back as a woman

No more than you or I could, no. Crying on command isn't something healthy-minded people get to do very easily.

You have a more naive view of social relationships than I do (or rafa : see ‘crocodile tears’) . It’s all about incentives. Boys are not rewarded for crying, so they learn not to cry. We’d be bawling our eyes out right now if there was status in it. It’s funny, even on the internet, in communities unlike this one, people will signal that they are upset to "win an argument".

You are spilling a lot of words on what should be a particularly simple set of questions: can any given woman cry back sincerely? Should they? And if they choose not to, should we applaud or condemn them for it?

They can but shouldn’t. We need to stop rewarding (or punish) this behaviour in women, like it is punished in men.

Two parts. First, correct the inequity in allowing this behaviour in women versus men. Then determine which rules we want to universally apply. My rules applied fairly> your rules applied fairly > your rules applied unfairly. I am partial to the male way of doing things here : cry = you lose the argument.

They can

I disagree. There are some people, at the margins, here, there, who can lie, delude themselves, or go with the flow enough to cry in situations like these. Anyone else can't and won't. Talking shit about them because 'they won't even cry when they could, the idiots' is moral poison and no outlook anyone should have.

but shouldn't

On this, at least, we agree.

People can do any number of morally reprehensible things, like stealing, murdering, raping and pillaging. Being concerned that current incentives might push them in that direction is not 'moral poison'. Your willful blindness is not morally superior.

More comments

Has anyone done a blinded study of this? I can't help but think of that old steroid placebo study.

It's not 100% biological or environmental, and I'm not that conservative, more MRA than redpill.

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