site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   27810 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 8, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Historically, divorce was very difficult to obtain, and it was more likely than not that the father would retain custody of the children (so there were definitely cases where the wife was blackmailed with "if you ever want to see your kids again..."). If a woman was at fault in a divorce, she was ruined socially and probably economically as well. Even where the husband was the offending party (e.g. cruelty or infidelity), a divorced woman still found it difficult to resume her life afterwards.

This is why I'm not against divorce legally or even culturally (cue: But TollBooth, aren't you a TRAD?). I've been in enough relationships (and exited them) to understand that the same person who you feel deeply connected and wholly in love with in Month 2 can be the same person who you literally never want to speak to again in Month .... 8. I've been safe enough to avoid getting married, but it is not at all hard to understand that some couples in the exact same situation - and millions of similar ones - would. If that turns out to not be a good match, an exit ought to be possible.

But the costs of divorce for both partners seem quite high. What's more, I've seen no evidence that pre-marriage cohabitation (i.e. a practice run) helps. Anec-datally, I've seen it do the opposite. So, we've a situation in which lots of people are entering into an agreement that will entangle them deeply for a long period of time. Financial and social penalties abound. It's very hard to actually tell if you and the other person are going to "make it" no matter what you do.

Quick aside: Pre-marriage counseling, usually in a religious context, in my opinion, does nothing to help with the choosing of a partner. Instead, I think, it mostly just doubles the level of commitment on the part of each party and kind of builds in a fatalist co-dependence. As Catholic as I am, I've seen many catholic marriages that probably should've ended drag on (til death!) out of a grim determination to the idea of marriage. More on that later.

Yet, it's close to self-evident that a stable, two parent household is the basic building block of society. If they start to disappear (even more than they already have (!)) bad things happen. But The Institution hasn't kept up from its 1000+ year history of being, at its core, an economic contract for mutual survival and reproduction. I don't know how to fix that, but I have a hunch it's important.

On folks who get into and stay in marriages because of an external commitment to an idea / ideal (mostly the very religious) ... That selection bias ought to be obvious. Anyone who can commit themselves in a meaningful way to an abstract idea, ideal, or metaphysical concept is going to have a level of self-discipline, thoughtfulness, self-awareness etc. that puts them into pretty safe territory across a whole host of Big Decisions in life. That's not the audience that matters.

But the costs of divorce for both partners seem quite high. What's more, I've seen no evidence that pre-marriage cohabitation (i.e. a practice run) helps. Anec-datally, I've seen it do the opposite.

I'm in a bit of a different situation. I don't see how a long-term relationship can be successful without a practice run, especially given the complaints around chore splits and finances.

Yet you're correct in that the data suggests rolling directly from living separately -> marriage is more successful. It doesn't compute for me. I've always ascribed the difference there to "only the most religious/susceptible to social pressure can resist cohabitation before marriage" and so will stick out relationships at a higher rate.

It's my belief that Cohabitation undermines the ultimate marriage between the same couple, because it throws off the stakes and the leverage between parties. A lot of couples get into bad habits during cohabitation, and it is difficult and muddy to straighten them out after marriage. When you get married without having lived together, you have a clean slate.

One other thing pre marriage counseling offers is some basic conflict management tools that many young people especially young people with a single digit number of relationships may not have developed naturally.

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