site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   31554 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 22, 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.

10
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Well, if they are lying, I expect we'll hear Comrie's version of the story soon, and I'd be inclined to believe her version over theirs if they have factually contradictory narratives.

  • -10

Yeah because in the year 2023 a he said she said involving a black man and a white woman will surely favor the white woman… She has already been dragged at severe cost to herself. She needs to stick to what she can prove; not call the blacks liars.

Somehow I doubt that, given their story, as they tell it, has some pretty conspicuous and fantastical gaps you're willing to overlook and/or create your own implausible account which is definitely not the story they are telling.

/lukeskywalker quote

Somehow I doubt that,

Well, I can't do anything about you insisting I'm lying about what I believe.

given their story, as they tell it, has some pretty conspicuous and fantastical gaps

I'm open to being persuaded on this, but I don't see conspicuous and fantastical gaps.

you're willing to overlook

Implies I am just willfully cherrypicking which facts I believe. Again, I cannot persuade you of my ingenuousness, but there really isn't much point in engaging if your go-to move in any disagreement is "You're lying, you don't actually believe that."

and/or create your own implausible account

Okay, you find my account implausible. I don't.

which is definitely not the story they are telling.

Clarify this for me. You seem to be claiming that they are claiming that she physically lifted/moved/forced a kid off his bike and manhandled it out of his possession with brute force.

In the above link (which is their version of events), the only statement I find resembling this is:

She then pushed her way onto the bike and attempted to remove it from the docking station and take it.

I suppose you could read that as "She physically forced a resisting teenager off the bike" (which I agree would be very implausible). Which do you think is more likely: that that is indeed what they meant, that she used her Pregnant Lady Strength to bully them, or that they meant she was pushing the kid on the bike and he got off rather than escalating? Note that this does not make that version of events true, but it does not seem implausible to me.

I mean, we have the video -- it doesn't really look like there'd been any shoving match recently?

Much more likely the dude was hanging around in the general vicinity of the bike but still felt entitled to it -- once he noticed the pregnant woman mounting it he started making a fuss, to which "fuck you, it's not your bike" seems like a New Yorker response with much precedent.

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