site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   27176 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 6, 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.

5
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Fair enough. This just gives me one more data point for why the common man (or an aggregation of common men) should have basically zero political power on national scales, not like I needed any more for my collection but yeah, this goes on the pile.

In related news there was a comment I saw on Reddit that showed just how bad democracy has been for the middle east during the last 100 years:

The more uncomfortable and probable answer is that of all the states created in the 20th century, the monarchies have performed far better than the republics

Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Saudi, Oman

Libya, Iraq, Iran

These are all neighbouring each other, are all within the top 10 oil and gas producing states per capita

The first group is wealthy and stable. The second are the complete opposite. One key difference..

Iran was a stable, prosperous monarchy

Iraq was a stable, prosperous monarchy

Libya was a stable, prosperous monarchy

The republican coups turned each of these three countries into poorly run repressive warmongering terrorist havens,

There's no two ways around this.

I'm completely pro Uncle Sam being world hegemon, but one thing I do not understand is America's hard on for democracy even in countries that are eminiently not suited for it.

This just gives me one more data point for why the common man (or an aggregation of common men) should have basically zero political power on national scales

So I take it you are pro-Rotherham sexual ethics, then?

How is that connected to anything I said? The Rotherham rapists were animals who would be publicly hanged under my ideal system. Giving the common man less power to influence national politics has zero bearing on how much power they should have over their own children and local surroundings. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy where the common man has next to no power on a national level, they still have ways of influencing their local neighbourhoods and have power over their children etc.

If oppressive monarchies have a tendency to experience revolutions in the first place that wreck the country, that has to be taken into account as a negative for oppressive monarchies though. Thats one of the functions of democracy, so that the common people feel they have a say and don't overthrow the government.

You're seeing the end state of an oppressive monarchy collapsing and blaming it on what follows. If oppressive monarchies were so stable, then they wouldn't collapse like this.

Unfortunately in the middle east at least "democracies" tend to experience revolutions/coups that wreck the country at roughly the same rate or even higher, so that's not an argument for choosing democracy over monarchy.

Perhaps not, but measuring performance of a post-revolution nation against the pre-revolution nation without noting that the revolution itself is a pretty big red flag against the performance of the oppressive monarchy is still not very accurate.

If oppressive monarchies have a tendency to experience revolutions in the first place that wreck the country, that has to be taken into account as a negative for oppressive monarchies though.

I have to remember that one the next time they start screaming about "threats to our democracy".

Sure, all government types have weaknesses and flaws. Democracy has its own set. Democracies tendency towards decision paralysis with ideas that have closely balanced support is a big one at times.

I'm not talking about "decision paralysis", I'm talking about "Russian interference", "fake news", "populism", "extremism", and so on. If revolution is monarchy's fault, all those things are democracy's fault, and should be embraced as they come, rather than fought.

Oh absolutely, populism is a definite issue in democracies at times. I was just giving one example, not an exhaustive list. Note I am not saying revolution should be embraced or populism, just that when comparing the pre- and post revolution outcomes, you can't escape that the oppression is in many cases what triggered the revolution. It has positives and negatives, focussing only on the positives of one and the negatives of the other is not an accurate comparison

I hope you’ve noticed what those countries have in common. The conclusion here is that every common man in the world is a decent ruler, with one exception. One muslim, one vote, one time.

I'm completely pro Uncle Sam being world hegemon, but one think I do not understand is America's hard on for democracy even in countries that are eminiently not suited for it.

It's the source of their legitimacy. The grunts that went to Iraq and Afghanistan weren't told "you are fighting to uphold our global hegemony!", they were told they are bringing democracy to the oppressed.

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