site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   33060 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 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 New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

since this does not seem to clearly violate any existing rules.

Low effort isn't a rule?

Also, if it doesn't violate any rules, but it's obviously something bad for the group, you should add it to the rules so that you can give out a warning next time someone does it.

Low-effort-to-volume ratio, maybe. This clearly had some thought put into it.

I would support adding a "no laundry lists" rule to cover the situation. The ninety-five theses may have had plenty of effort, but this board is not a church door.

95 these are probably a little different, since they aren't 95 disconnected things, but an overarching argument (or maybe a few connected ones). I'd think that it would be more acceptable than this. If some one took one of the long posts we have here but attempted to present it syllogistically, I see no reason why that would be a problem, even though it would then be a long list of statements.

Point taken.

Intuitively, I’d prefer the longpost version to a list. Something about the amount of space it takes up. I’m not sure I can defend that intuition, though.

Low effort is a rule, but I didn't think this post was strictly a violation of that.

And we try to avoid having tons of rules.

The post is low effort per claim, even if it isn't low effort total.

(And a post is supposed to be high effort because of depth, not because of quantity. Multiplying low effort by 73 is high effort in the sense of total quantity of effort, but it's of low depth. Calling this high effort is just taking advantage of a loophole in the rules.)

I didn't see the post as a request to argue for these 73 points on this specific post, but rather as an invitation to engage in a more in depth conversation elsewhere. The poster seems pretty sincere in that desire to engage elsewhere. If they had said "here are my 73 positions, fight me here" then yah, I would have agreed it needed sanction. That is not what they said or seemed to intend, that is just what people did.

I find the invitation to engage elsewhere to be one of the worse aspects of the post. It seems somewhat exclusionary and against the purpose of the culture war thread, which I believe is to have discussion on the issues in the thread.

That sorta makes sense to me. But at the same time we don't really offer audio discussion here.

Maybe if they had asked to have private text conversations elsewhere it would be more of a problem.

But it probably doesn't belong as a comment in the culture war thread, then, and would be better put elsewhere?

Yes, and that is what I said in the post with my modhat on.

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