site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   38184 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 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.

8
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

To my knowledge Ted Kaczynski was not a Christian. If I am wrong, someone please correct me. Nonetheless, he fought the fight he believed in, he finished his race, and to the best of my knowledge he kept the faith (a faith of his own invention, with it's holy text being Industrial Society and Its Future) until the end.

he fought the fight he believed in, he finished his race, and to the best of my knowledge he kept the faith

So, presumably, did many Islamic State fighters. I don't think it makes them worthy of respect if their fight was conducted abhorrently and directed towards awful ends.

It should, because if you don't respect someone you're likely to underestimate them, or otherwise misunderstand them, and so be more likely to fail when combatting them (or when trying to reach a peaceful modus vivendi).

He was a paranoid schitzophrenic who murdered innocent people. He's hardly worth lionizing.

Having read his manifesto, I find it hard to imagine a schizophrenic could write that lucidly, and express his points so clearly and concisely. I find him much more lucid, direct and less prone to digression than e.g. Curtis Yarvin or Eliezer Yudkowsky. His defense attorney thought that pleading insanity was his best chance, but he refused to do so, despite knowing full well he'd probably be treated better in an institution than in a prison. You think he shouldn't be lionized, fair enough, but I don't think there's good evidence to suggest he was a madman.

Paranoid schitzophrenia was the official diagnosis of the psychiatrist who interviewed him post-arrest.

ETA Sourcing: https://harbor.klnpa.org/california/islandora/object/cali%3A1205

Fair enough, but see also Wikipedia:

Forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz said Kaczynski was not psychotic but had a schizoid or schizotypal personality disorder.[119] In his 2010 book Technological Slavery, Kaczynski said that two prison psychologists who visited him frequently for four years told him they saw no indication that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and the diagnosis was "ridiculous" and a "political diagnosis".[120] Some contemporary authors suggested that multiple people, most notably Kaczynski's brother and mother, purposely spread the image of Kaczynski as mentally ill with the aim to save him from execution.[121]

It seems like a controversial diagnosis even within the psychiatric community. I'd say either he wasn't schizophrenic, or he's the most lucid and clear-minded schizophrenic in the history of the diagnosis.

Doesn’t he have an IQ of like 183? Seems like a relevant variable to that last bit.

167, per the New York Times's obituary.

I mean, that’s still really, really high, and the sort of thing that seems relevant to him being oddly clear minded for a schizophrenic.

Yeah, 167 is off the charts.

As so often happens, you're both right.

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