site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26696 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 11, 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.

6
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Personally my answer for them would be to create an explicitly opt-in secondary class of marriage that functioned like marriage did in the past. I don't know how long they'd be able to keep it up in the face of regular society, but I imagine it'd be popular enough with islamic immigrants that they'd be able to call any criticism of it racist.

So some sort of privately certified pre-nup?

So some sort of privately certified pre-nup?

The problem here — as with every "you can get a traditional marriage if you want one" argument — is enforcement. Indeed, I've seen people try to argue "a properly-written pre-nup is all you need to make your marriage as it would be before no-fault divorce" online — at which point everyone else points out Diosdado v. Diosdado, and they either fall silent or resort to 'well, the Diosdados must have not done it properly; it must be possible somehow' sputtering.

Generally, it looks to me like the sort of "parallel society" thing that only really works for Hasidim and Mennonites.

Thanks for that cite, literally an eye-opener.

I wonder if an arbitration requirement would play well.

Generally, it looks to me like the sort of "parallel society" thing that only really works for Hasidim and Mennonites.

There is also a similar church court system in many paleo-protestant communities.

There is also a similar church court system in many paleo-protestant communities.

Sure, but how powerful is the threat of ostracism/expulsion in those communities to provide enforcement of the court's decision, as compared to its effectiveness in maintaining an Amish Ordnung?

What is informative in Bonds is the distinction the court drew between the freedom of contract found in ordinary commercial contracts and the existence of limitations in marital agreements.

A-ha! Perhaps you can skirt it by not calling it marriage? One the one hand they completely de-sacralize the thing, on the other they want to impose their own rigid interpretation of what marriage should be. I say go all the way and pretend it’s an ordinary commercial contract between economic entities that might as well be corporations. This is not legal advice.

Perhaps you can skirt it by not calling it marriage?

Except, for one, there's the various "common-law marriage" statutes vis-à-vis long-term cohabitation and "if it looks like a marriage." Then there's the sort of things that don't really fit on an "ordinary commercial contract between economic entities" and aren't really enforceable outside family law — most things involving the kids, for example.

This is not legal advice.

Yeah, you're definitely right on that.

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