site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   27578 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.

Anyway, most of you have heard of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s ‘conversion’ if one can call it that, so I won’t dwell too much on the fact that it includes no indicators of actual belief.

As a Catholic/Christian, I don't get to judge the sincerity or not of her conversion. It may be that she is speaking about it publicly in ways to convince non-believers as to why she converted, and the more efficient way to do that is list off secular advantages. How many atheists in the debates of the 2000s were ever convinced by believers giving accounts of mystical experiences?

If she says she believes, I have to take her at her word. I can't see into her heart or mind to judge if she's lying about any of it. And "yeah right she's converted, I don't see any belief there" is a very atheist way to approach the angle of "I can't imagine any reason a non-idiot would convert to believe in crazy fairy stories, so she must be lying about it".

And "yeah right she's converted, I don't see any belief there" is a very atheist way to approach the angle of "I can't imagine any reason a non-idiot would convert to believe in crazy fairy stories, so she must be lying about it".

I am admittedly an atheist that sees this as, "yeah right", but it is absolutely not because of the latter position. I take people's religious beliefs seriously, I like hearing from them about why they hold those beliefs and what it means to them, and I know plenty of non-idiot believers, so I have no need to imagine a reason to convert - they're right there! Sure, the specific tenets of Mormonism really do seem silly to me and it's hard to get beyond that, but I do not doubt the seriousness, intellect, or authenticity of many converts. Ali's conversion seems hollow and lacking in any sort of deep connection to Christianity, it seems like the classic belief in belief and wanting to believe Christianity for pragmatic reasons related to cultural benefits of the religion rather than an actual, earnest belief in the literal truth of the claim that Christ is King, was crucified for our sins, and rose from the dead. I don't know that she's insincere, but the lack of plainly stating that her reason for being Christian is that Christianity is literally true is reason enough to doubt her. I don't think that is an atheist position at all - I know intelligent Christians and they say that the reason they're Christian is because Christianity is true, not that they're Christian because they want it to defeat Islam.

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