site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   24579 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 25, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I would guess that most of the people complaining are more concerned about who he was running against. And for some of those people, more specifically the race of that person.

Do not weakman in order to show how bad a group is. Especially when that group is "this forum," please.

I didn’t say anyone is "bad." I was describing their possible motivations, not their moral value as people. For example, Trump was right to say that there were "very fine people on both sides" at Charlottesville; in fact, the vast majority were probably perfectly fine people. Even James Fields's actions were perfectly understandable, even if they were morally wrong. I have known of ]gang members who have done terrible things, but who are not terrible people](https://oaklandvoices.us/tag/lam-vo/page/2/). Whether a person's actions are wrong does not mean that the person is a "bad person," and indeed with some exceptions, claims about the moral worth of individuals are meaningless, at best.

  • -14

I didn’t say anyone is "bad."

I didn't say that you said anyone is bad. I modded you for violating the rule against weakmanning. Since you were apparently confused by the shorthand, here is the rule in its entirety:

There are literally millions of people on either side of every major conflict, and finding that one of them is doing something wrong or thoughtless proves nothing and adds nothing to the conversation. We want to engage with the best ideas on either side of any issue, not the worst.

Post about specific groups, not general groups, wherever possible. General groups include things like gun rights activists, pro-choice groups, and environmentalists. Specific groups include things like The NRA, Planned Parenthood, and the Sierra Club. Posting about general groups is often not falsifiable, and can lead to straw man arguments and non-representative samples.

Avoid posting solely about gaffes, misstatements, or general bad behavior from prominent people. Discussing policy implications is always fine, and concrete criminal or impeachable offenses are also fair game. For example, "Look at Congressman Jones being a jerk" is not OK; "congressman Jones is under suspicion of taking bribes" is fine, as is "congressman Jones's employment law is bad for these reasons . . ."

Sometimes we get good discussion about the consequences of gaffes, misstatements, or general bad behavior; for example, "here's Congressman Jones being a jerk, let's talk about the underlying reason why congressmen do this sort of thing regularly". In most cases, these should stand as valuable posts regardless of whether they refer to Congressman Jones or not.

Links to news stories should generally follow the above rules, although cannot be expected to adhere to them exactly. For instance, a news story which uses an anecdote to introduce a concept is OK (this is a very common framing discussion), a news story which is about tweets from non-prominent people reacting to some event isn't ok.

You broke that rule, and in particular the group under discussion was this forum, which I am particularly protective of, as we have discussed.

Don't.

I didn't say that you said anyone is bad.

Yes, you did: "Do not weakman in order to show how bad a group is."

If ascribing motives to people who post here is considered against the rules, fine. But I suggest clarifying that in the rules, because the rule you quote explicitly endorses ascribing motives to the common behavior of groups: "let's talk about the underlying reason why congressmen do this sort of thing regularly".

I didn't say that you said anyone is bad.

Yes, you did: "Do not weakman in order to show how bad a group is."

Which word in that sentence you quoted is the word "say" or "said?" Can you bold it for me?

"in order to show." What did you mean, if not that I was saying that the group is bad?

What did you mean, if not that I was saying that the group is bad?

That you had violated the rule against weakmanning.

Right. By means of ostensibly saying that the group was bad, right? Jesus, what is the point of claiming you didn't say what you said? It doesn’t undermine your broader point, which is that you don’t want people opining about the motives of members. That rule holds whether one thinks that the motive says something about the moral status of the person, the moral status of the motive, neither, or both.

Right. By means of ostensibly saying that the group was bad, right? Jesus, what is the point of claiming you didn't say what you said?

You didn't--as you were for some reason anxious to point out--say that anyone was bad. Remember? This is you:

I didn’t say anyone is "bad."

That's true! And it is true in very much the same spirit in which I didn't say that you said it.

It doesn’t undermine your broader point, which is that you don’t want people opining about the motives of members.

No. What I don't want you doing is weakmanning any groups, but especially not this one.

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