site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32344 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.

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

She accessed an available shared resource and wanted to use the resource she paid for the use of that's not wrong.

Since in the video she wa

You accidentally.

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