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.

Dude, I already said that the literal interpretation is that laws must treat everyone the same.

This part is ipse dixit, and one that strains reality.

That is the dictionary definition of "equal": "the same."

Ok, "the same what"? Where is the part where it says "the laws must treat everyone the same equal"? Where are those words? What "protection" would these not valid laws be providing? You can't just take one single word, "equal", ignore all the rest of the words, and then make up an idea that its literal meaning is that there cannot possibly be any distinctions in any way. That's just not there. You're divining it out of magic (and one word). You're ignoring even the very next word! No remotely rational person would accept your reading as the "literal" one.

You are arguing that "equal protection" does not mean there can't be any distinctions in any way, which I and everyone else agrees with.

Why don't you tell me what you and other remotely rational people think the literal meaning is.

You are arguing that "equal protection" does not mean there can't be any distinctions in any way, which I and everyone else agrees with.

Congrats! You agree with the literal meaning of the words! You had claimed that the literal meaning of the words was something else, but you haven't even tried to explain what that is and why that is even a plausible literal meaning. You haven't even tried, because you can't, because by far, the best literal reading of the words is exactly what you just agreed to.

I mean, you could try. You could just show me where, in the literal words, it says "the laws must treat everyone the same equal". You could just show me, in the literal words, what "protection" these not valid laws would be providing. You could at least try to explain some other meaning that you think is the "literal" one... but you haven't, because your original claim was completely moronic. No plausible literal reading of the words simply takes "equal" to stand completely on its own, completely excised from every other word, and magically interprets it all the way to, "Law cannot make any distinctions whatsoever."

No, the literal meaning is that there can be no distinctions whatsoever. Which is why the literal meaning is not the actual meaning. But at this

point I am pretty sure you understand that, and are just pretending otherwise.

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.

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