site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   33631 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 Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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

I do not deny that the boys were in the wrong also (filming and posting the encounter was especially poor), but that still doesn't exonerate the woman.

Exonerate her from what? Telling criminals to stop being criminal?

It's perfectly normal to hold someone responsible for their actions even when they were in a stressful situation. When I'm having a bad day and I snap at someone, I go and apologize to them later because I still was in the wrong even if it was understandable that I acted poorly

This isn't victim blaming, this is just basic manners. Nobody is saying that this woman should be punished, just that she was in the wrong to act the way she did (understandable though it was).

  • -14

Your mistake throughout this thread is assuming that anyone is "tolerating" and "enabling" what the teens did. Nobody is. You need to learn the distinction between "not issuing condemnations as fervently as possible" and "tolerating the behavior".

  • -11

No. Your mistake is equating behavior that in most societies results in being put in the stockades with behavior that gets you a public service award.

What are some examples of condemnations being issued, non-fervently? Tepidly, even? Of someone saying this behavior should not be tolerated?

I have repeatedly said that the kids were in the wrong. I haven't explicitly said it, but I'll explicitly say now that their behavior shouldn't be tolerated. Like I've said, I don't think that the woman's behavior makes theirs ok.

But then what consequences do you think they should face, if you think rudeness is excessive?

It's not a question of how extreme the consequences should be, so much as them coming from the proper place. I think it would be totally reasonable for the city to fine the kids, or to revoke their accounts on the bike ride system. They certainly seem to be breaking the rules of the bike ride system and would deservedly be punished for it.

But, if you know that none of those things will actually happen, as everyone does, how can you condemn even the mildest of social consequences? You seem to be taking the position that only governmentally imposed consequences are morally acceptable, which seems both ridiculous and naive.

But, if you know that none of those things will actually happen, as everyone does, how can you condemn even the mildest of social consequences?

The theme running through my whole series of posts is "just because they don't act right doesn't mean you get to act v badly too". Why would that change when it's the government not acting right?

You seem to be taking the position that only governmentally impress consequences are morally acceptable

In this specific instance, yes because it's a government provided service so they need to enforce those rules. That is not a general principle I'm arguing for.

More comments

This situation is intolerable to me so anything that isn't full condemnation is the same as toleration to me.

Well first of all, that's a poor standard. It's the exact same behavior as woke purity spirals, where people get into pissing matches to see who can condemn the person most harshly and treat anyone who doesn't participate as an enemy.

But more to the point, the people you're arguing with don't actually excuse the kids' behavior at any point. I agree that no matter what, they were wrong to act the way they did. All I'm saying is that if we assume the kids' telling of the story is true, the nurse acted poorly as well. It doesn't mean "well she deserved what happened", it doesn't mean they were justified, it means that she responded to people acting badly by acting badly in turn. So unless you're prepared to take the stance of "anything that isn't full exoneration of the woman is the same as toleration of the kids' actions", nobody here is tolerating their actions even by your standard.

  • -13

At some point your fine distinctions break down into more coarse ones. And when you assign blame to the nurse, you excuse the teens.

And when you assign blame to the nurse, you excuse the teens.

No. This is not true at all.

It obviously is. It comes across as "Well, the kids did wrong, BUT the nurse didn't handle the situation perfectly so what happened to her is OK". And everything before the BUT doesn't matter.

I have repeatedly said that what happened to her was not OK. At this point, the only way you can interpret me as saying that is willful misinterpretation of my words. Which I can't stop you from doing, but I'm under no obligation to defend things I didn't say or even imply.

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