site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   39302 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 2022

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.

40
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But that's not the world. Nature is violent; maybe one day some hallowed technocrat will genetically engineer the capacity for violence out of his new slave race, but we've got to deal with the current human condition.

The one in which people actively reject your way of thinking? Because there are many people who have banded together and decided w/o using force, instead with reasoning and debate, that some things are immoral.

That calculus still exists no matter what I do. If someone wishes me dead, it is not my ability to call them evil that will stay their hand; it's my ability to defend myself, and/or the state's ability to convince them they will face legal punishment.

Calling them evil is a strategy. It is an appeal to them that they risk violating a direr imperative. Words can and have ended fights before they start.

We're having a conversation. That's not proselytization; there's not a chance you'll adopt my values and I'm not trying to persuade you to. If your goal here is to convince me my morality is flawed, I'm sorry to say you are wasting your time. My morality is perfect.

If you think you hold the perfect morality and you think people cannot be convinced of another's morality except by physical might, then what's the point of even being on this site? You responded to others that you hold it as moral for people closer to you via your circles to exploit those farther away. Why would you even bother saying this if you think people cannot change their morals via words?

Regardless, you are correct when you say that you will not concede any point about morality. So this is where I drop this conversation.

The one in which people actively reject your way of thinking?

No one rejects it. They reject bluntness, and couch it in layers of preening obfuscation. The rule of law is innately rule by violence. Society cheers when the "right people" get hurt for the "right reasons". They make calls for direct action to stop hate. Etc., etc.

Calling them evil is a strategy. It is an appeal to them that they risk violating a direr imperative. Words can and have ended fights before they start.

People don't kill because it's really hard to hide a corpse and life in prison sucks. It's not being evil that dissuades people, it's being punished.

If you think you hold the perfect morality and you think people cannot be convinced of another's morality except by physical might, then what's the point of even being on this site? You responded to others that you hold it as moral for people closer to you via your circles to exploit those farther away. Why would you even bother saying this if you think people cannot change their morals via words?

This is a discussion forum. I am having discussions. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to reckon with, but it's really, truly not complicated. It is a recreational social activity.

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