site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   34314 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.

Without necessarily subscribing to the position myself, couldn't one make a similar argument for fracturing the definition of parenthood? That accepting different people as "mom" damages the category, breaking down traditional roles and responsibilities, and implying a level of malleability that is both out of step with biological reality and corrosive to society. If so, any individual could be quite pro-social while the recognition of the institution of parenthood as flexible could be dangerous.

I think you see something similar claimed by the more tepid trans-skeptical (which I would probably group myself with) - sure, there are some people that genuinely have gender dysphoria, were always going to have gender dysphoria, and it would be best to do what we can to make those people comfortable, but enthusiastically embracing them as "real women" and telling everyone that gender is malleable is going to lead to a hell of a lot more mental illness and cause way more damage if we make a big deal out of it. Likewise, any individual may be in a difficult position where they're just trying to do the right thing for the kids, and they may deserve for everyone to just call them "mom" for the sake of everyone involved, but we shouldn't start acting like this is as just and good and just as valid of a relationship as a traditional two-parent household.

I agree there should be a lot more stigma associated with breaking up households. Kids deserve to have both parents present.

But in some situations (eg remarry after death) I could totally see a loving stepmom fill the role. It wouldn’t be untoward for her stepkids to give her a Mother’s Day card instance.

At the same time, she isn’t the actual mother.

Curious if that same effect is seen for adopted kids. I just wonder how much stepmoms are just selecting for people who are generally unstable. That doesn’t even mean the step mom is anti social. It could just mean the environment itself is antisocial.

The disadvantages of not having a dad - lower income, less supervision, no male role model, etc - all seem less important than the effect of being raised by the type of woman who becomes a single mother, or in the type of environment that generates single motherhood.

Or—likely most importantly—the effect of inheriting the genes of a single mother and/or the man who knocked her up.

alternatively, knowing that your dad is gone because of the impersonal, unavoidably tragic nature of the world does a lot less damage to a kid, relative to knowing that your dad is gone because he looked at you and your mom, and chose to throw you away.

I've never had a spouse die, but I have been divorced. All else being equal, I'm pretty sure having a spouse die would hurt less.

I don't think it's emotional damage so much as effects on role model. A father who abandoned his familial obligation, or went to prison, is a very bad role model. A father who died will is not present as a role model, but his idealized memory will be.

Also, becoming the man your dead father would have been proud of is more motivating than making a father proud who "clearly" didn't care.

alternatively, knowing that your dad is gone because of the impersonal, unavoidably tragic nature of the world does a lot less damage to a kid, relative to knowing that your dad is gone because he looked at you and your mom, and chose to throw you away.

It's possible, but one could easily reframe and pose a just-so story the other way around too: that knowing your father was ripped away from your life and is forever done and gone because of the cruel, cosmically unfair nature of the universe does a lot more damage to a kid—relative to knowing that pa has been absent because ma and pa don't get along, but time heals all wounds so he could come back for you someday.

I've never had a spouse die, but I have been divorced. All else being equal, I'm pretty sure having a spouse die would hurt less.

For spouses I'm sure, as spousal death doesn't include a lengthy, bitter, expensive court battle, losing half your stuff, and possibly paying alimony after. Many married people even choose homicide over divorce. It's "til death do us part" and not "til death or divorce do us part" after all, where the former is even considered romantic. However, for children, I'm fairly certain most of them would rather that their parents get divorced than have one of them die.

Tactically, it's also good practice for him to internalise that white lie such that it becomes muscle-memory, for if/when he wants to start playing the field again. Few things turn off women like lack of success with other women, so "my wife died" is a much less negative signal than "my wife left me."

the effect of being raised by the type of woman who becomes a single mother,

Not just being raised by her, sharing her genes as well.

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