site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   27412 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is very strange to me, how can you measure these things that are explicitly non-economic?

Presumably by measuring how much people will pay to have them?* In other words, how much in taxes or fees people are willing to pay for a national park, a normal park in their neighborhood, for avoiding industrialization and so on.

I suspect that's the point of the NAC, to find out that value.

*when there's an actual risk of them being taken away

What happens once some company releases tens of millions of bees and demands to be paid for all this pollination (far in excess of what is needed) even as they damage whatever ecosystem they're in?

Do your best to compute net impact, and if the benefits of pollination are exceeded by the damage, fine them for the cost?

At any rate, I'm not opposed in principle to NACs, even if I'm cynical on their outcomes or the intentions behind many advocating for them. From a libertarian perspective, I think that if people want a say in what people do on private land, such as wanting your neighbor not to build a high rise next to your bungalow, they should be willing to pay them off instead of restrict their rights legislatively. There are cases where more general externalities hold, such as for pollution, but for mere aesthetic preferences, my preferences are "fuck you, pay me".

From a libertarian perspective, I think that if people want a say in what people do on private land, such as wanting your neighbor not to build a high rise next to your bungalow, they should be willing to pay them off instead of restrict their rights legislatively.

You are perfectly free to build a high-rise beside my bungalow, it's your land and I don't get to say what you can do with your own things.

By the same token, I am perfectly free to hold our brass band practice sessions in my living room at 3:00 a.m. just when you got your colicky baby off to sleep. You can't tell me what to do with my own things on my own land.

Or the pair of us could agree not to be assholes and try to find a compromise where both of us get to enjoy what we possess without inconveniencing the other too much.

(Libertarian arguments do seem to have the flaw of swerving too easily and too soon into "I have the right to be an asshole so long as I don't step one inch off my own possession, and you just have to suck my chocolate salty balls, loser").

Or the pair of us could agree not to be assholes and try to find a compromise where both of us get to enjoy what we possess without inconveniencing the other too much.

Except that never works out. The "compromises" end up being a matter of who/whom. I end up not being able to play loud videogames at 6pm because my neighbor does shift work and is sleeping at that time, while the other neighbor keeps me up at 3am with his colicky baby and I have no recourse. Both actual examples, by the way.

You can turn off a videogame, you can't turn off a baby. The parents of the screaming kid would love to do that, but infanticide is generally frowned upon.

Loud noise is a nuisance regardless of its source, and should be penalized.

You are perfectly free to build a high-rise beside my bungalow, it's your land and I don't get to say what you can do with your own things.

I don't think there is a right to have an unrestricted view of the horizon. If you want to buy the air above my land in order to preserve your view of the horizon, then of course that's fine. And you can sue the "economically disadvantaged" "urban youths" who move into my apartment building if they trespass on your land or play their boomboxes too loud.

By the same token, I am perfectly free to hold our brass band practice sessions in my living room at 3:00 a.m. just when you got your colicky baby off to sleep. You can't tell me what to do with my own things on my own land.

Noise loud enough to extend onto someone else's property and interfere with his enjoyment of that property is a valid subject of a lawsuit, I'm pretty sure.

What is and is not a valid basis for a lawsuit is a political decision, just as whether or not you can build a high rise next door is a political decision. There's no principled difference.

Fortunately I am an unprincipled person and happily say that I want the high rise and not the noise.

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