site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   34946 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Look, you've asked a very simple question - "Why do we have to keep doing it?", i've explained why.

Your explanation amounts to the Politician's Fallacy -- "We must do something (to alleviate unfairness). This (Marxism) is something. Therefore we must do it."

We don't have to take Marxism at its word that it makes the world more fair, not when the actual results have been demonstrated over and over again. Nor is it necessary to have an alternate solution in order to reject Marxism.

I'm sorry, i have a stupid habit of editing my message a lot, so if you care enough to look at it again - i think i'm trying to explain there that it's not just that the marxism is "something", therefore we must do that. But it's trying to address the problem(real or not, but it's very common perceived problem in our world full of terrors) directly, and it's doing it convincingly enough for many. And the lack of simple enough alternative way towards is helping marxism greatly.

But it's trying to address the problem(real or not, but it's very common perceived problem in our world full of terrors) directly, and it's doing it convincingly enough for many.

It's claiming to address the problem. I think the reason it's doing it convincingly enough for many is those many want the skulls. Or at least the part where it harms those who are not them. In which case sensible people should look at these people and note that they are the enemy and should be fought rather than accommodated.

Maybe many do want the skulls and in many cases it's the obvious effect perceivable unfairness has on people. And in their eyes sensible people should look at the reason why the unfairness happens and note that those responsible are the enemy and should be fought rather that accomodated. Capitalists, white people, man, bigots and so on.

And in their eyes sensible people should look at the reason why the unfairness happens

And they're obviously and trivially wrong about the source of the unfairness.

Because the real reason is software piracy, i remember.

The real reason is that the universe is not a well crafted game where balance is carefully baked in. A boat sinks and two lifeboats drift separate ways, each crashing on deserted islands. One is lush and the other barren, which party is responsible for the disparity? who should be punished for it? Wealth and it's creation do not create poverty and practically no one, especially the rich, benefits from the existence of poor people.

I'm not sure why in this conversation i'm the devils advocate, but to be honest i'm fine with it so far, as long as arguments of the opposite side are somewhat weak. I won't be able to defend marxists for too long however, as i'm roughly on the opposite side of the autistic spectrum. TheMotte became so devoid of lefties, i need to LARP as a commie!

So you gave the artificial example of the situation when obviously none is responsible for the unfairness. So it somehow should prove that there's no situations when there is perceived unfairness? The horribly unjust universe has much more distant effect on the death of your son than the fat general who stole the money on his equipment.

Can you try to steelman your opponents position first in your mind and THEN argue against it? Do you think you'll be able to convince anyone with arguing against the strawman of their worldview? I already feel a burning urge to start singing The Internationale based on those arguments of yours!

as long as arguments of the opposite side are somewhat weak

Oh blow me.

So it somehow should prove that there's no situations when there is perceived unfairness?

No, it's to demonstrate that misfortune doesn't need a culprit. This is something that Marxists have a lot of trouble on because outside of monopolies, which everyone opposes, their models for why the rich are at fault for the condition of the poor are incredibly weak.

The horribly unjust universe has much more distant effect on the death of your son than the fat general who stole the money on his equipment.

Is this some reference I should be getting? The death of any random poor person is almost always most proximately caused by some other random poor person and not the elites.

Can you try to steelman your opponents position first in your mind and THEN argue against it?

You've given me very little to work with. So far you haven't even formed arguments, just made vague statements and refused to engage in points. As a rule I don't try to form entire positions for people who haven't started formulating their own position especially regarding leftists because from what you've said I don't even know if you're arguing in favor of libertarian or authoritarian formulations of leftism and both of those take radically different tacts and require radically different arguments.

More comments

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