site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   24896 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 30, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

He literally waged war on his country

I was under the impression that his country declared independence from the country he waged war on?

So, if I renounce my US citizenship, declare my state an independent country, and lead an army towards Washington, DC, I have not committed treason? Neat trick! It does raise the question of why a pardon of Confederate soldiers was deemed necessary, however. This conversation is bordering on silliness. I really do not understand the need to refuse to concede a single point to one's opponents in an argument. Again, it is perfectly possible to argue that Lee deserves to have a statute, despite committing treason.

So, if I renounce my US citizenship, declare my state an independent country, and lead an army towards Washington, DC, I have not committed treason? Neat trick!

Yes. It's called secession. Though I think you should just defend your territory rather than march on the enemy capital. Many such cases. Some of them successful, the United States of America being one of them.

It does raise the question of why a pardon of Confederate soldiers was deemed necessary, however.

Simple: to show them who's boss.

I really do not understand the need to refuse to concede a single point to one's opponents in an argument. Again, it is perfectly possible to argue that Lee deserves to have a statute, despite committing treason.

Yes, I know. Consider the possibility that I do not have a need to refuse to concede a single point, but I just disagree on the matter.

Yes. It's called secession.

That, of course, begs the question.

Many such cases. Some of them successful, the United States of America being one of them.

Yes, and what the American colonists did was clearly treason. There is a reason that Franklin said, "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Just as they committed treason because they literally waged war against the Crown, so, too, Lee committed treason by literally waging war against the US. The fact that the colonists won means nothing, just as the fact that an act of terrorism leads to the achievement of political goals does not mean the perpetrators did not commit an act of terrorism.

That, of course, begs the question.

Much like calling it "treason" does.

Yes, and what the American colonists did was clearly treason.

There's nothing clear about it to me. Secession isn't treason any more than divorce is infidelity, and much like you're insisting waging a war for independence is treason, some Catholics will insist that there's no such thing as divorce, and that any romantic relations with another person after marriage are infidelity. The "silliness" which you are experiencing, that you mentioned earlier, is just two different worldviews colliding. It's not a question of who's wrong, it's a question of how we define terms. In the other thread someone asked why didn't Lee join the Union army to sabotage it from within, under my framework that would be treason. But politely declining, making it clear where your loyalties lie, and waging war, is not.

It's not a question of who's wrong, it's a question of how we define terms.

Except that sometimes coming up with eccentric definitions obfuscate matters. When the Constitution explicitly defines treason to include precisely what Lee did, then although it is fine to say that you define it differently, but then it is incumbent on you to explain why what Lee did, whatever label you assign to it, does not disqualify him from having a statue. As I have said, there might well be a perfectly legitimate argument in that regardm but "under my definition, Lee did not commit treason" is not such an argument.

One day I have to figure out how to set up Mechanical Turk surverys, because it sounds like I fun way to win internet spats. No, I don't concede that there's anything eccentric about my definition, and I even think it's debatable (though less important) that the Constitution defines it the way you say it does.

but then it is incumbent on you to explain why what Lee did, whatever label you assign to it, does not disqualify him from having a statue.

For one, your initial objection sounded like you care far less about the statues being there, and far more about the "treason" label, that's why I replied. Now you seem to be doing a 180...

Anyway, how is it incumbent on me? The statue is there, no one objected to it for decades, and now people are scrambling for excuses to take it down.

how is it incumbent on me?

How is it incumbent upon you to "to explain why what Lee did, whatever label you assign to it, does not disqualify him from having a statue"? Because that was the claim you were responding to.

Because that was the claim you were responding to.

False. The claim I responded to was "He literally waged war on his country".

More comments

then it is incumbent on you to explain why what Lee did, whatever label you assign to it, does not disqualify him from having a statue

Only if you care about the statue. Some people care more about the label of treason being thrown around by people who apparently don't care why it's treason, merely insist that it is, because that is weird as fuck.

One would think that most people who "care about the label of treason" would be perplexed as to why the label would not fit a military officer who resigned his commission and then led an army on a march towards the country's capital.

Care more about the label of treason. If someone doesn't give a single solitary shit about a statue, then merely wanting to be sure you are spelling treason correctly fits the criteria, as does anything beyond that.

It would be too annoying for readers to keep this up though, so I'll provide my perspective. I think the word treason is very serious and should not be thrown around lightly, and I think Lee fought for his home state because, like many Americans at the time, he saw the United States as a union of states - plural, not a singular entity, and Virginia was his home. It was a different country he lived in, unlike the United States as they are recognised today, and I don't feel comfortable accusing someone of something as serious as treason with my limited and anachronistic perspective, particularly when I know a lot of very serious men with much higher stakes in the matter refused to.

I can however, understand why someone living in the United States today would consider him a traitor, which is why I haven't gone tearing through these threads calling everyone who dislikes Lee assholes and why I have been upvoting many of @fuckduck9000's excellent comments despite disagreeing with him.

But you don't appear to have put much thought into it. You don't care why it's treason, you just demand people call him a traitor. You don't seem to care about the topic at all except to use it as a gotcha. As far as I can tell you have recognised an opportunity for a two minute hate and dove in with your boots on. I mean honestly, how does it not matter to you - of all people - that he wasn't convicted of treason?

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