site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   31568 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.

As I said, being in the wrong is not a zero sum game. They can be completely wrong in their actions, and she can be wrong in hers. I certainly am not saying that she was, because (as you, @Amadan and I all agree) they are likely to be lying just to save face. All I'm saying is that, if they are telling the truth, the nurse can be wrong without absolving them one bit.

I truly don’t understand your charity to them.

I'm not trying to defend them, and I don't understand why you act like I am. I'm simply pushing back on the idea that to say the nurse acted poorly means that the kids are absolved for their actions.

  • -11

Have you read about how the system works? And how they were camping the ebikes until all the meatbikes were taken so they could take the ebikes for free? Does that change your mind about her culpability? It did for me, but I admit I really didn't want to believe the pregnant nurse had done anything wrong.

Yes, I have. It doesn't change anything. It's still pretty rude to scan the bike that a kid is literally sitting on. As I've said repeatedly, the kids acted worse but that doesn't mean that her actions (as portrayed by the admittedly biased kids) were OK either.

  • -13

If someone is pushing the buttons on the insert coin screen of a video game you want to play, there is nothing wrong with telling them to either play or move. They can respond oh my friend is making change but that buys no more then a minute.

But that isn't the equivalent to what she did. What she did is more like saying "play or move", then when they say "we're going to play in a while", saying "well you lose your chance, I'm playing right now" and shoving them aside to put quarters in the machine.

"play or move"

"we're going to play in a while"

"well you lose your chance, I'm playing right now"

That's what should happen. Someone who responds to the choice being I'm not moving by physically moving the person out of the way and playing has done nothing wrong. They offered the first person there a fair choice and have a higher claim by right of them and the asset owner wishing to engage in trade. The party given the option can choose either one but anything other than playing is a default move choice.

a) There is no evidence she shoved anyone aside, and the idea is unlikely.

b) Even if she did, that still does not describe behavior that is in any way wrong.

It's the scissor statement story, shit they actually did it.

If they were doing that, she literally did nothing wrong.

How is paying to rent a bike that's available wrong? Someone wanting to keep it, but who didn't remnt it because they have to return it before getting a second free use, needs to allow other free and paying renters to do so.

If you want to check out a library book again, it needs to go through the return process so that you can't just keep it indefinitely when others wish to check it out.

How is paying to rent a bike that's available wrong?

Except that isn't what happened according to the teens. According to them, what she did was to scan a bike that one of them was sitting on and had said he was going to still use. This is roughly equivalent to if you find someone at the library who has a book on the desk in front of them, who says "sorry but I'm going to check this book out still", and you snatch it off the desk and check it out yourself. That isn't breaking any laws or anything but would be kind of a dick move.

I'm not saying that this nurse is the worst person in the world, or that she should be fired, or anything like that. I am just saying that as the kids tell it, she was kind of rude to them. That's all.

  • -15

This is more like someone checking out a book for 2 weeks, returning it, and then camping by the shelf until it becomes available again so that no one else can read it.

She was allegedly “rude” to people who were scamming Citi Bikes. It’s only rude once you accept the anti-social activity by the teens was appropriate.

It’s only rude once you accept the anti-social activity by the teens was appropriate.

No, that is not true. I can point out that both are wrong, there's no need for me to choose one side to be in the right. As I keep saying, many people in this thread need to learn that being in the wrong is not zero-sum.

  • -19

Even accepting your premise. She would be a -.000000001 and they would be a -10

Doesn't matter. The way this game is played is that if she did anything wrong at all, she can be written off as deserving whatever she got.

Yes, and? I never said that the magnitude of the offense wasn't different (though the level of difference you're trying to portray is ridiculous, it's not that out of whack). Through this entire thread I've agreed that the kids are more in the wrong, even if their story is true. I just refuse to accept the bad premise that because they're more in the wrong, means that nobody else can be in the wrong.

  • -12

I suspect many people are classifying the thing you're doing as concern trolling (not sure if I'm using this devilish phrase right, but I think it fits). Repeatedly and insistently noticing that ackshually, the lady might also not behaved perfectly and therefore anybody who insists on strongly condemning the kids is suspect of being an idiot who thinks blame is a zero-sum game doesn't add much to the discussion, other than you being able to put on airs of a wise elder stroking his long gray beard while the vulgar are baying.

Except when the wrong is the size of the wrong Anti_dan posits it is so de minimis as to be ignored. Trying to say “both sides are wrong” is necessarily conveying a sense that both sides are roughly equal. But if you think the one side is less than 1% wrong taking a “both sides” approach is conveying an incorrect message even if you think it is technically correct.

Someone both has no legal claim and no moral claim to X. Someone else has the legal and moral claim to X. Saying they are both wrong seems like a really hard claim. What did the person with a legal and moral claim to the bike do wrong here?

He may have been sitting on it, but he hadn't rented it, thus it was available it just had someone attempting to intimidate others from using it until the system allowed him to get another inexpensive turn. He can either pay to extend his rental or allow someone else to use the shared rental.

This seems far more like someone claiming that they're previous check out should give them priority over another being first in line after they return a highly demanded book to me.

Again, nobody is saying that the kids were in the right to do this in the first place. I agree that it certainly seems like they were in the wrong to try to monopolize the e-bikes the way they were. But, if we assume their account of things to be true, she acted poorly on her end as well. If someone is monopolizing a book at the library, the correct course of action is to report them to the authorities, not to take matters into your own hands and snatch the book off the desk in front of them.

This is what I'm talking about when I keep saying it isn't a zero-sum game. Assuming that the kids' account is true:

  • The kids were wrong to sit on the bikes and call dibs on them.

  • The woman was wrong to just scan the bike while the kid was sitting on it trying to call dibs, rather than just finding another option for transportation.

  • The kids were wrong to not just give up the bike they wanted to use so the tired pregnant lady could have it.

  • The kids compounded that wrong by filming the whole thing and trying to look like innocent victims.

At no step of this sequence of events did anyone act correctly. I don't need to overlook the kids' behavior to assess that the woman was rude in her own way under this view of the events.

  • -18

If someone is monopolizing a book at the library, the correct course of action is to report them to the authorities, not to take matters into your own hands and snatch the book off the desk in front of them.

Not analogous to what she did. And also a totally different situation. The relevant question for you is: How does she get home at the time she is legally and morally entitled to do so. The only correct answer is that rando teen #4 has to stop doing illegal things.

The woman was wrong to just scan the bike while the kid was sitting on it trying to call dibs, rather than just finding another option for transportation.

Incorrect. She judged that this was the cheapest and fastest option for her to return home. It is no different than if she parked her car in a parking lot an these teens thought it was cool to pose for pictures on her car and refused to let her use it to drive home.

the correct course of action is to report them to the authorities,

Which is a nice catch 22 since reporting black men to the authorities is a much bigger violation of norms since they're at high risk of being shot. This sounds to me like her option is to be a second class citizen who can't ever win.

The woman was wrong to just scan the bike while the kid was sitting on it trying to call dibs, rather than just finding another option for transportation.

It's an available bike, if the guy sitting on it wants to use it, he was welcome to check it out or extend his ride. Since he didn't it's now anyone's bike to claim. It's a shared resource. This is like saying that one person can sit in front of the crab legs at a buffet just eating them as the bucket is refilled, and anyone who reaches past them is violating norms and partly to blame. No, the person not letting others use the unclaimed bike is wholly in the wrong.

Which is a nice catch 22 since reporting black men to the authorities is a much bigger violation of norms since they're at high risk of being shot.

That's an idiotic norm and anyone who espouses it needs to be slapped so hard they get knocked into orbit. There's no catch-22 here, IMO.

This is like saying that one person can sit in front of the crab legs at a buffet just eating them as the bucket is refilled, and anyone who reaches past them is violating norms and partly to blame. No, the person not letting others use the unclaimed bike is wholly in the wrong.

Again, you're treating being wrong like a zero-sum game. It's not.

  • -13

That's an idiotic norm and anyone who espouses it needs to be slapped so hard they get knocked into orbit.

This is not the right way to express things around here.

It's not zero sum, but in this case 100% of the blame for this situation is on the kids tying to game the system not the lady using the system the way it is designed.

Yes, they bear 100% of the blame for their actions. And she bears 100% of the blame for hers (assuming the story we got is accurate, of course). Nobody is in the right here.

  • -17
More comments

Since in the video she wa

You accidentally.

Because people who are not petty children don't stoop to that level. They were misbehaving in gaming the system, maybe, but that doesn't make it a mature response to try to take it after they have clearly indicate that they are about to use it again. Much as in a library, if someone was keeping out longer by returning and loaning it again, and if you asked that person whether the book they had placed on the table was going to be taken out and they said yes, it would still be an absurd and unbecoming response to snatch it up and take it to loan it yourself to forestall them.

  • -19

I think your book example falls short.

First, the bike was means of transportation for a woman who has been pregnant for 6 months old to get home. She wasn’t just trying to catch up on the latest book of the week. I’ve seen my wife being six month’s pregnant numerous times. It isn’t easy. Getting this bike probably made her physical journey home a lot easier.

So your theory of the case is that good manners requires a pregnant women to physically inconvenience herself to accommodate misbehaving teens gaming the system who of course were able to walk to another bike station with ease?

No good manners would dictate the teens surrender — if they had lawfully had it — the right to the pregnant woman. It is even more a massive violation to try to prevent the pregnant woman from taking the bike that is legally hers.

I just cannot imagine the situation where the woman was the ill mannered one in the context of her being sups preg.

If you have returned something it's not yours it's available to anyone again. If you want to keep it the app has a simple method to do so, you just have to pay for it. He had returned the bike making it available to all and was wrong to prevent someone else from using it.

When you return a book you've checked out, you're welcome to check it out again after anyone else who has reserved it has done so, this is like claiming that since you had it checked out last you should be able to bypass the line and be first.

If you have returned something it's not yours it's available to anyone again. If you want to keep it the app has a simple method to do so, you just have to pay for it. He had returned the bike making it available to all and was wrong to prevent someone else from using it.

People keep saying this but what these rules are is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether it was good form to take the bike anyway. I know it was available to everyone when they docked it, but that has no bearing on questions of manners.

  • -20

The whole point of limiting free rides to 45 minutes and increasing the fee on paid rides over time and requiring a user to wait between rides is to allow other people to use a shared bike whether they are free users or paid. It's not right to claim a shared resource over that period just because you had it previously.

Their ride was over, unless they were willing to pay to extend it. They were welcome to end their ride, or start paying, but not to return their bike and claim that they were still using it because they wished to do so later.

Two things here. Firstly, I am told by New Yorkers that this is common practice, in which case it seems hard to place much blame on the kids in that regard, if it's a widely accepted norm. Secondly, even if they are wrong in that regard, it doesn't exonerate the woman. Her actions were still petty even if one shouldn't try to 'reserve' bikes in that way.

  • -12

Firstly, I am told by New Yorkers that this is common practice,

...among the antisocial portion of the community.

in which case it seems hard to place much blame on the kids in that regard, if it's a widely accepted norm.

I suppose blame the mayor and the rest of the libs who are supporting the antisocial teen group as well?

Her actions were still petty even if one shouldn't try to 'reserve' bikes in that way.

Getting home on time and in a inexpensive manner that you are legally entitled to is petty?

First, the only person who I've seen that claims it's common is one of the people in the story's sister who seems like a motivated agent. From the NewsOne article op linked:

Even regular Citi Bike riders do this,” Mary explained. “The price goes up after 45 minutes for everyone, so people routinely ride their bikes, dock their bikes, ride their bikes, and dock their bikes again.”

Perhaps it's common but so is turnstyle hopping, and ubiquitousness doesn't make it moral.

A lady rented a bike and then wanted to use the bike she rented. She had every right to be as petty as she wished when someone wanting to use the bike in the future but unwilling to make a claim at the same time or prior to her tried to prevent her from using the bike she rented.

Like half the point of book term limits is to allow round-robin lending. If you're swiping the book, you're defecting against the person who wants to re-loan it, but that person is defecting against the library system.

I agree they are defecting against the system, but that still doesn't mean it's a mature response to go very far in trying to stop him. In manners if not in politics, 'they go low, we go high' pretty much always applies.

  • -13

They can be completely wrong in their actions, and she can be wrong in hers.

And just like it not being a zero sum game, it is also possible that one side was more wrong than the other. Even conceding she did something wrong (which I don't), it's pretty clear what they did is far worse. And before you put her actions under a microscope, maybe make some concession to the fact that she's pregnant and was just done with her shift?

I agree with everything @SubstantialFrivolity said, and I do not see where you think what we said contradicts anything you just said.

  • -16

As explained above, the attempt to “both sides” the situation suggests some degree of “in the same ballpark” of wrongness.

If you believe one person was 1%-5% wrong and the other person was 95%-99% wrong there is little reason to try to adjudicate wrong reds between the parties because it is so lopsided as to be functionally equivalent to the latter party being in the wrong.

Arguing “both sides” and then saying “but the first party was only slightly wrong” comes across as patently dishonest because that isn’t how people operate. Nor should it be how people operate. It creates more heat than light.

So a person who understands how these concepts are used in practice would assume that someone who argues “both sides” are wrong assumes there is at least material even if not equivalent wrongess on both sides. Therefore of course people who don’t see the woman as doing anything materially wrong are going to react negatively to the argument. And then their interlocutor can say “what you mean she couldn’t have done a little better; I just said both parties were wrong and if she was just the tiniest bit wrong I was right.” That is either dishonest or a misunderstanding of humans morally reason heuristically

Indeed. People are picking a fight where there is no disagreement lol. Kind of the whole theme of this thread, funnily enough.

  • -10

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