site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   36342 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.

the literal meaning is that there can be no distinctions whatsoever.

You've said this, yes... but you haven't given a reason for why it's the literal meaning. Whereas I have given at least three reasons for why it should not be considered the literal meaning. But at this point I am pretty sure you understand that, and are just pretending otherwise.

After all, if taken literally, the Equal Protection clause would invalidate all laws, because all laws treat some groups differently than others. "No trucks allowed in tunnel" discrim[in]ates against truck drivers, and "people under 16 can't get a driver's license" discrim[in]ates against those under 16.

This, from 10+ layers back, seemed the line that made the most sense to me. If we add, perhaps, that "no murdering" discriminates against murderers, that would seem to forbid all laws.

That said, this took me time to think through, so I do think that @Gdanning is too quick to assume insincerity in this case. (nor do I see where you conceded his point, as he says)

  1. Yes, laws which forbid murder discrimate against those who commit murders. That is perhaps made most clear by the fact that the law punishes murderers more severely than it does those who commit manslaughter, and of course those who act in self-defense.

  2. The only point I said he conceded was that he is only pretending not to understand.

Yeah, he said that, but it's pure ipse dixit. He think it is "because all laws treat some groups differently than others". Ok. Does somewhere in the EPC, it say, "Laws can't treat some groups differently than others"? No! It doesn't say that! He just made it up! Show me where, in the literal text of the EPC, where it says, "Laws can't treat some groups differently than others."

You've said this, yes

And yet in your previous reply, you said the exact opposite. Thanks for proving my point.

Bullshit. Where? Now you're just resorting to lying about what I've said?

EDIT: So you don't forget:

you haven't given a reason for why [your preferred literal meaning is] the literal meaning. Whereas I have given at least three reasons for why it should not be considered the literal meaning. But at this point I am pretty sure you understand that, and are just pretending otherwise.

Read more carefully. Both my words and your own.

Try reading at all. I have been abundantly clear.

you haven't given a reason for why [your preferred literal meaning is] the literal meaning. Whereas I have given at least three reasons for why it should not be considered the literal meaning. But at this point I am pretty sure you understand that, and are just pretending otherwise.

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