site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33100 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 12, 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.

You made a claim about academic malfeasance without any evidence apart from one person.

I'm done talking to you. Either you didn't read my post, or you didn't understand it, or you're flat-out trolling (which I often suspect you of doing, but I try to pretend that's not the most likely explanation for most of your participation here). I gave you a list of several people who did the same thing, I linked multiple examples including books from academic presses, and then I repeated that list to you when you ignored it the first time.

"Oh but Google Scholar only has two examples" is a non sequitur in that context.

Well, I apologize for not going back and looking at every one of your links to see who published them, but I am afraid that you are the one who is trolling. Because if you weren't, and instead were acting in good faith, when I said that you don't have any academic examples, you would have pointed to the books from academic presses, instead of simply denigrating Google Scholar.

And, your post linked to four books: Anti-Racism in Higher Education: An Action Guide for Change (published by Policy Press); Reframing Assessment to Center Equity: Theories, Models, and Practices (published by Stylus Publishing); Developing and Evaluating Quality Bilingual Practices in Higher Education (published by Multilingual Matters); and White Reign : Deploying Whiteness in America (published by St. Martin’s Press). None of those is self-evidently an academic press. St. Martin's certainly isn't. So, again, someone arguing in good faith would have said, "note that the books I cited are by academic presses; for example, Stylus Publishing is owned by Big State University Press." But, you didn't do that.

Let me just google these:

  • Policy Press seems to be attached to Bristol University.

  • Stylus Publishing doesn't offhand have an association with any university, though they certainly depict themselves as a university publisher.

  • Multilingual Matters "is an independent academic book publisher based in Bristol, UK"

  • And St. Martins just seems to be a freeform publisher.

So depending on qualification, this is either 0/4, 1/4 or 3/4. What do you consider an "academic press"?

As I said, "None of those is self-evidently an academic press." That's the point: He is upset that I said he did not provide evidence for his claim of "academic malfeasance" nor "shitty scholarship" because he linked to a couple of books that are published by what are arguably academic presses, but his initial links were to Amazon pages. so in order to figure that out, you need to 1) scroll down to find out who the publisher is; and 2) google them.

And, let's not lose sight of the larger picture: If the misuse of this quote was indeed common "academic malfeasance", it would indeed show up more than a handful of times in a Google Scholar search. He is making an inflammatory claim about his outgroup, based on almost no evidence.

I gave you a list of several people who did the same thing, I linked multiple examples including books from academic presses, and then I repeated that list to you when you ignored it the first time.

Well, I apologize for not going back and looking at every one of your links to see who published them, but I am afraid that you are the one who is trolling. Because if you weren't, and instead were acting in good faith, when I said that you don't have any academic examples, you would have pointed to the books from academic presses, instead of simply denigrating Google Scholar.

lol what the fuck

Don't post low effort, contentless comments like this.

Tell Gdanning that, please. Most of his posts lately seem to be nothing but a lot of words to say "I didn't read the post I'm replying to". It's obnoxious and infuriating and hard to believe it could be in good faith and I can't judge anyone too harshly for this kind of reaction. Just because it's superficially more polite (although even that gets borderline at times!) doesn't make it higher quality.

No. If I see Gdanning actually breaking any rules, I will mod him, but "Makes bad arguments that piss me off" is not against the rules.

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