site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   30473 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Im on my way to a barbecue right now so dont have time to add much in the way of commentary but a federal has just hand down an injunction barring the white house from working with social media organizations to censor specific content. A rulling that the Washington Post describes as dangerous and violating long standing norms. Happy Fourth of July all ;-)

I suppose this is a good time to bring up a comment I made a while back: https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/pitqan/comment/hc3utzv/?context=3.

I think this decision by SCOTUS is bad governance. I don't have any opinion on whether it's good law or consistent with the US Constitution, just that this ruling will have an overall negative effect on this country and more broadly that control of the media (and certainly social media) is an essential function of government.

I mean... at least with the traditional media, one could point to some semblance of professional ethics! I personally don't place much weight on these but it's something at least! Uncontrolled social media is a cesspool of lies, cancel mobs, and cat memes. If it isn't brought under control, it will create havoc in our society.

If social media is to be controlled, the only question is: by whom. And here, I claim that government is the only possible answer. Any non-government organization would amass so much influence that it's "non"-government status would become merely a polite fiction. The only choice here is between formal government control vs. informal government control (much like the argument I made in my last post).

To avoid repetition, please refrain from arguing for free speech as an end unto itself. I understand the argument. I just don't agree with it. In my opinion, free speech is a tool (for a more orderly and prosperous society). This is a disagreement on core values and we'll just have to agree to disagree. Now, if you want to argue about how effective a tool free speech is, have at it (spoiler alert: I don't place much faith in it).

[EDIT: it was pointed out below that this wasn't a decision by SCOTUS. Replace "SCOTUS" by "the courts" in the above. I don't think it makes a meaningful difference.]

Uncontrolled social media is a cesspool of lies, cancel mobs, and cat memes. If it isn't brought under control, it will create havoc in our society.

Note that if it becomes commonly known that the deck is hopelessly stacked against one's faction, democracy's function as a relief valve against rebellion breaks down. This is edging toward that kind of case for "we can't win through the system, burn it all down".

That said, you're right that social media can be a problem. There are mostly-politically-neutral ways of solving that; the most obvious is "ban smartphones". I say "mostly" there because SJ in particular might fall apart without omnipresent social media to keep everyone scared (and the alt-right/alt-lite as reaction to SJ would also fall apart, in that case, though a lot of that infosphere is less smartphone-dependent so it's more indirect).

I think this decision by SCOTUS is bad governance.

It's not a decision by SCOTUS.

more broadly that control of the media (and certainly social media) is an essential function of government.

Thank you Joe Goebbels.

Any non-government organization would amass so much influence that it's "non"-government status would become merely a polite fiction.

That's the theory. But so often, particularly in the United States, we find that when it appears this is happening, the actual government has really put its thumb in. That's what was happening here.

To avoid repetition, please refrain from arguing for free speech as an end unto itself.

No.

It's not a decision by SCOTUS.

You're right. Thanks for the correction. s/SCOTUS/courts.

Thank you Joe Goebbels.

Ad Hominem? Or not even...? Guilt by association? I'm not even sure which logical fallacy this falls under.

That's the theory. But so often, particularly in the United States, we find that when it appears this is happening, the actual government has really put its thumb in. That's what was happening here.

That's... not even a counter-argument? It's little surprise the government wants to... govern!

I'm not even sure which logical fallacy this falls under.

People usually call it Godwin's Law (technically, it's a corollary; GL itself merely says that Hitler or the Nazis will be invoked) or reductio ad Hitlerum (snowcloned off the non-fallacious "reductio ad absurdum").

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