site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   27549 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 27, 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.

11
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If I show that women are less likely to be the victims of non-random violent crime as well, will you concede, or move the goalposts again?

I don't see how the goal posts ever moved. The original claim was that woman are easier to victimize (because they are physically weaker than men), men being more likely to be victims in general does not seem to preclude that.

The original claim was that because women are easier to victimize, they are actually being more victimized, which is why doxxing them is worse. If he actually meant what you're saying, it would be irrelevant to the conversation.

I think it is probably true that doxxing poses more of a physical risk to women than men.

I think this can be read a few ways, I think your reading is something like, therefore the number of women physically assaulted after being doxxed would be higher than the number of men, and you don't think the stats would back that up.

A different reading, would be that a (specific) woman being physically assaulted after being doxxed is in more danger, because they are physically weaker than men.

It is possible this is also not borne out by the stats, but they would be different stats, like, how often do women survive a physically violent attack compared to men.

All of these stats are complicated though, because I doubt the whole of the difference would be because men are just 'randomly' more likely to be victims.

It is possible this is also not borne out by the stats, but they would be different stats, like, how often do women survive a physically violent attack compared to men.

All of these stats are complicated though,

Right, I'm not saying you can't possibly make an argument to that effect, I'm saying that any such argument would be complicated enough that a publication like the NYT shouldn't throw it around like it's obvious, and posters like SSCReader should not act like they only rely on uncontroversial assumptions.

If you can show that women are less likely to be at risk from being doxxed due to a mixture of physical attributes and due to the nature of online gender mixtures and behaviours then sure. As that was my ACTUAL claim.

Remember we are encouraged to be specific here. So do me the courtesy of addressing my actual specific argument not something else please.

I may be wrong, it's certainly happened before! But at least address my claim not some other thing you are interested in debunking.

If you can show that women are less likely to be at risk from being doxxed due to a mixture of physical attributes and due to the nature of online gender mixtures and behaviours then sure. As that was my ACTUAL claim.

The logic of the argument is faulty. The physical attributes do not make doxxing more physically dangerous for women, for the same for the same reason they don't make any other encounter more physically dangerous for women. If you want to make the claim that doxxing is some super special exception that results in more violence for women, you need to actually back that claim up with something.

Remember we are encouraged to be specific here.

No we're not. You tactic of deliberately misinterpreting the rules in order to win an argument is as bizarre as it is ineffective. Go ahead and report me, if you disagree.

But at least address my claim

I did, but you're moving the goal posts. If you're making a claim, it is enough to point out that it's logic is faulty. You do not get to demand that someone brings evidence against an ultra-specific scenario, particularly when you've brought none yourself.

I didn't say it resulted in more violence, i said it could be riskier in part due to them being weaker.

Presumably you would agree that all else being equal if a woman and a man get in a physical altercation, the woman is at greater risk of harm? Not due to any moral differences, but simple biology.

Risk includes both the likelihood of something happening and how bad the outcomes are likely to be.

The other part of my argument is that due to the gendered ratio of the internet, it is more likely for a doxxed woman to have someone decide to actually find them than for a man. I think that is true, but perhaps only slightly.

However even if that chance is entirely 50/50 the first part of my argument would still mean women are at greater risk because they are weaker.

I didn't say it resulted in more violence, i said it could be riskier in part due to them being weaker.

If violence doesn't enter the picture, I fail to see how it's in any way riskier.

Presumably you would agree that all else being equal if a woman and a man get in a physical altercation, the woman is at greater risk of harm? Not due to any moral differences, but simple biology.

No, I won't, for precisely the reason you state below.

Risk includes both the likelihood of something happening and how bad the outcomes are likely to be.

And if I show you that women tend to suffer less physical harm in the event that they do get into a physical altercation, will you concede that your argument is wrong, or will you shift the goal posts yet again?

it is more likely for a doxxed woman to have someone decide to actually find them than for a man. I think that is true

Based on what?

However even if that chance is entirely 50/50 the first part of my argument would still mean women are at greater risk because they are weaker.

Fortunately for me, both parts of your argument are either unbacked by any evidence, or completely wrong.

No, I won't, for precisely the reason you state below.

But once you are already in a physical fight the chance of the fight occuring is no longer a factor. C'mon. ONCE you are in a fight was the whole point of that example at which point the fact that a woman may be less likely to get into said fight in the first place is already accounted for!

And if you are going to deny simple biological differences then clearly there is not much more to talk about. Men are on average stronger than women. In a fight where each is trying to hurt the other it is extremely likely the man wins and is able to hurt the woman more than she is able to hurt him. My evidence for this is physics and biology.

You don't seem to be actually making arguments against what I am claiming (in as much as you are making an argument at all), rather some version of what you THINK I am claiming.

But once you are already in a physical fight the chance of the fight occuring is no longer a factor. C'mon.

Which is why I asked if you're going to concede the argument, if I show you that women tend to be harmed less then men once in an altercation, or if you're going to move the goalposts again.

ONCE you are in a fight was the whole point of that example at which point the fact that a woman may be less likely to get into said fight in the first place is already accounted for

Actually, it's not. You're dismissing the factor of the chances to get into the fight, in order to show that they're more likely to get harmed. You said yourself that the likelyhod of harm must take both into accout. The problem is that you're not even bothering to show they're more likely to get hurt, once in a fight. For your argument to hold they would have to be injured a lot more than men, once in a fight, in order to compensate for the lower likelihood of the fight occurring.

And if you are going to deny simple biological differences then clearly there is not much more to talk about

Nope, everything I said us already after granting the biological differences.

You don't seem to be actually making arguments against what I am claiming

That's not true, I am directly addressing your claims.

Well then let's start at the base and work up to find the issue. Would you agree that men are (on average) stronger and more physically aggressive and therefore more likely to be able to inflict harm on a woman in a physical altercation, should they want to?

I'd actually like you to stop avoiding the question of which evidence is going to make you concede the argument, rather than shifting the goalposts, first.

But sure "more likely to be able... should they want to". If a man is absolutely determined to do damage, he will have an easier time doing so. That is miles away from "more likely to hurt a woman, once in a fight", and in another solar system from "(conditional on your original assumptions), doxxing is more likely to result in harm to a woman".

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