site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   31553 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
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You have consistently been the voice of reason. Until now. This, of all dumb culture war topics, is what got you.

Oh well, we all have our failings. Mine greater than yours on internet forums. But this one is bad.

You have consistently been the voice of reason.

Not the voice of reason. The voice of neutrality. These are often confused for each other, but the truth does NOT always lie in the middle.

That you think this is amazing, and rather illustrative of my initial point. I think both sides are slanting the encounter according to their own perceptions of it and neither side was wholly innocent, and the reaction from you is "My God, you actually can see both sides instead of agreeing that this is black and white, don't you know righteousness is a binary value?"

You're right, though, that this thread is a breakpoint of sorts.

  • -14

That you think this is amazing, and rather illustrative of my initial point. I think both sides are slanting the encounter according to their own perceptions of it and neither side was wholly innocent, and the reaction from you is "My God, you actually can see both sides instead of agreeing that this is black and white, don't you know righteousness is a binary value?"

You're right, though, that this thread is a breakpoint of sorts.

Unkind, uncharitable and needlessly vague. And in response to a compliment no less!

You have consistently been the voice of reason. Until now.

Nah, he apparently went through peak trans recently, but otherwise this is perfectly in character.

Nah, he apparently went through peak trans recently, but otherwise this is perfectly in character.

Although the mod team is, in general, comparatively thick-skinned, this is still not the sort of response we ever, ever want to see here in the Motte. It is low effort and antagonistic, all heat and no light, sweeping where it should be specific (the fuck is "peak trans" in this context?) and specific (i.e. personal) where it should be more sweeping.

This is a bad comment. Don't post like this.

Being reasonable and even-handed and waiting to see the evidence is in character for me? Why thank you.

You've consistently been inaccurate in your judgments about me. (I was never on board with TWAW, for example. You see me criticizing trans ideology and think I made a heelface turn. I would gently suggest this should be reason for you to question your priors.)

You haven't posted any evidence when you said the nurse was also wrong, you posted the testimony of one of the sides of the conflict, and explicitly haven't waited for any of the evidence.

I also never said you were specifically in favor of TWAW, so I don't see what I should update.

So why do you think I "hit peak trans recently"? In what way do you think my views shifted?

I already explained my take on their encounter. As several other people have pointed out to you, both parties can be acting kind of like jerks, that doesn't mean one party (in this case, the kids) wasn't acting like bigger jerks. You don't have to agree with me that the nurse was not 100% innocent and in completely in the right, but at least recognize this is more like a melodrama where people are getting heated up over what's ultimately a nothingburger, and not a court case where one side is Right and the other side is Wrong. There are situations where even if you are legally and morally in the right, you can be an ass about it and deal with the other party in a less than ideal fashion. That you seem unwilling to even engage with any premise other than one that colors strictly within black and white borders is, well, if I were going to be as snarky and uncharitable as you, I would say "in character." Instead, I don't think you actually think that way, I think you are just seeing this encounter entirely through a tribal lens.

So why do you think I "hit peak trans recently"? In what way do you think my views shifted?

Because even though trans activism hasn't changed much over the lifetime of TheMotte (including the subreddit), you started speaking out against it only recently.

I already explained my take on their encounter. As several other people have pointed out to you, both parties can be acting kind of like jerks.

What are you talking about? No one "pointed it out to me", this was what SubstantialFrivolity said before I even joined the conversation, and I have two issues with it:

  • Even if everything happened as you described it, she didn't act like a jerk. Even kind of. You need to actually argue for it.

  • What you provided is not evidence.

With SubstantialFrivolity there's the additional issue that when one side is acting so much worse than the other, and you're putting the actions off the party that was acting better under a microscope, that's ridiculously unfair. The result is people like BurdensomeCount claiming she was using her privilege to take the bike away from them.

Because even though trans activism hasn't changed much over the lifetime of TheMotte (including the subreddit), you started speaking out against it only recently.

What I say about trans now is not much different from what I've always said about trans. I may agree that the trend has snowballed, which is of greater concern. You seem to be selectively noticing things.

I think you are very poor at modeling people to whom you've decided you are in opposition.

*Shrug*

I don't know what's going on inside your head any more than you know how you come off to others. I freely admit my memory isn't the best, maybe yours is better and you can maintain neutrality when discussing yourself, but it's only natural for people to be biased in their own favor, so absent evidence to the contrary I'd bet that whole bit about selective memory applies just the same to you.

Selective noticing is a plague I guess, because I noticed the same thing. Maybe @Amadan's opinion hasn't changed, but his willingness to express it definitely has.

There is no evidence here. Yet you conclude the story “basically checks out” which is the opposite of waiting for evidence; it is seeking a particular outcome despite the story still not really making much sense and requiring some inferences that seem likely.

And the story isn’t exculpatory so seems entirely pointless to commit to a story that is at best irrelevant.

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