site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   39301 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.

Yeah, that actually worked. No one succeeded in taking that action at the state level, they pulled it off with federal legal shenanigans. I don't think this example works in the direction you're kind of implying.

Making marriage legal in a state is not equivalent to flying immigrants to MV.

It's equivalent to cracking down on employers in a state. Which no republican governor is willing to do.

Cracking down on employers would be an immoral action, anyway. That sort of thing shouldn't happen; the problem isn't "the illegals have a job", the problem is "the illegals exist". Frankly, employing them is likely helping them keep their ongoing criminality to a minimum.

The only people who should be punished for illegals are the illegals themselves and their advocates.

Hold on just a second. Why are employers who break the law by hiring an illegal immigrant not immoral in the first place? Why do they get a pass when they refuse to do their part and verify that their employees are authorized to work?

I will not punish Americans for exploiting non-Americans. They are outsiders and lack any moral significance. Their employment, or lack thereof, isn't worrisome; the problem isn't the illegals having jobs, the problem is there being illegals. It's not the business' duty to enforce national sovereignty and borders, it's the business' duty to do the best they can for their customers and communities -- even if that involves breaking the backs of illegals. Wring them for all their worth while the feds sort them out.

Bullshit. The people who aren't US citizens have some inherent moral worth, even if it isn't as high as a citizen's.

Perhaps to you. But I'm not speaking from your perspective. If it was not clear, I began my post with "I will not...".

What a trivial response. Yes, we all understand that you speak from your perspective. I'm asserting that you are wrong. Or do you claim that your perspective is just that, unfounded and unsupported? Something that has about as much relevance to it as a discussion about one's favorite color?

You asked why employers would not be immoral. I told you why. That you disagree is noted but pointless -- there is no right or wrong in morality save that which we decide. What response are you expecting? I don't care if you think I'm wrong, I wasn't asking you for permission to have my moral values.

I'm expecting some kind of justification or elaboration. Your position is drastically out of the Overton Window, but you assert it as if it wasn't.

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