site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   38241 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
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Counter argument: without censorship, online communities naturally drift rightward as the sacred cows of progressives are slaughtered one by one with simple evidence.

No, not so. You'd have to entice people to come back in the first place, and then engage in what we might call outright-draconian moderation to ensure that tactics that are harmful to the discussion, but do not qualify as normal censorship, are also banned.

And that's assuming communities don't just decide to take on that censorship themselves. I have yet to see anyone believe that all communities everywhere should not engage in censorship.

Uh huh. Just like the old-fashioned Internet atheist communities destroyed by right-wing Facts and Logic.

I don't know anything about internet atheist communities. But feminism and intersectional orthodoxies don't tend to stand up well to basic inquiry by those not within the academic social setting.

What sort of orthodoxies did you have in mind?

Core tenets like “diversity is a good thing” are hard to disprove. Others like “women ought not be restricted to the home” are outside the realm of proof and into that of values.

Like women have been oppressed by a patriarchy for ten million years.

Like 1 in 4 female students will be raped on campus.

Like confusing the pay gap with the earnings gap.

Like looking at black homicide victim statistics. (Police killing black men make up less than 1% of the total.)

et cetera...

Facts are progressive Kryptonite.

Core tenets like “diversity is a good thing” are hard to disprove.

That all hinges on the meaning of "good" being used. If diversity is axiomatically accepted as virtuous in itself, then obviously its benefit can't be "disproved." But otherwise it's not so hard to provide historical and current examples of comparatively more and less diverse places and societies and make a choice.

Others like “women ought not be restricted to the home” are outside the realm of proof and into that of values.

Hardly; the expanded economic role of women can also be observed in different historical settings, and the results judged (according to the viewer's criteria, of course). For example, there is a powerful argument put forward by Liz Warren of all people that the economic and social liberation of women in the 60s doomed the middle class by creating dual-income rat races and driving up the costs of family-formation essentials like housing and childcare.

One could argue that they were destroyed by being re-branded as right-wingers.

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