site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   26658 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 1, 2024

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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The postulated tradeoffs of the Sexual Revolution, even if all the decline in reported happiness and increased suicide/depression are taken at face value and then attributed to it, are within what I'm willing to accept as a tax on my beliefs.

But what do I know? My country hasn't really had one, the norms around sex, dating and marriage in India are closer to 1950s America than they are to what's the case now or for the last half century or so. Still far more liberal than it used to be, it was nigh-Victorian in living memory.

I do not consider an increase in happiness necessary or sufficient by itself to justify any policy, even if it's obviously desirable. My preference for epistemic hygiene and clear thinking rules out any adoption of religion, and I don't deny that the religious are happier. If I was offered to be turned into a Lotus Eater or joy-wired, I would consider it a fate, if not worse than death, but close.

There’s not as much research as one would like, but from what I have found, the children of widowed mothers do not tend to differ much on outcomes from the children of biological, two-parent households, so “growing up without a father” doesn’t seem to be that important net of other factors.

Immense confounders ahoy! The genetics of the kids who are deprived of their dads because they died (accidentally or from illness) are going to be notably different from those who dads went to the corner store and never brought back the cigarettes (at least they avoided indoor smoking). Not to mention the poor taste/lack of judgment in their moms.

As far as I've read, single motherhood overall is terrible for the kids, probably even worse when you carve out the chunk who are single because of being widowed.

My country hasn't really had one, the norms around sex, dating and marriage in India are closed to 1950s America than they are to what's the case now or for the last half century or so. Still far more liberal than it used to be, it was nigh-Victorian in living memory.

Can confirm, I haven't met thirstier guys than Indians. I used to work with a bunch of young Indian men and they had a bunch of photo albums on the network share. Winter ones were the usuall assortment of "dude in (front of) a big pile of snow, dude in front of a thermometer, dude on ice skates". Summer ones? All creepshots.

There was one guy that looked like he was likely to score, as he had the looks and the confidence of a Bollywood star instead of looking like a nerd with panda eyes, but that's probably why he was recalled back to India after just a couple of weeks. Audible miring from the girls around the office must've alerted his boss, who had to protect his chastity before marriage in loco parentis.

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