site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   25987 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 New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's weird to see those mods all listed together. If I'm reading them right some are nude mods for Hogwarts legacy, and since the characters in that game are generally in highschool, that makes the mods CP. They are listed alongside mods for other games that basically just swap out pride flags. One thing is not like the other.

One thing (removing pride flags) is similar to the other (removing digital representations of clothes) in that they are both 100% harmless. Producing child porn is bad on the basis that in order to produce child porn, you must commit crimes against some child. Characters in video games are not sapient, and nothing done to them can constitute an immoral act or even have a moral dimension.

People's response to CP generally makes significantly more sense if you model it as a disgust reaction to the people who'd consume it rather than any true concern for children's wellbeing. The fact that no children were harmed (EDIT:) in this case doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that some creep is actually finding some enjoyment in life.

People's response to CP generally makes significantly more sense if you model it as a disgust reaction to the people who'd consume it rather than any true concern for children's wellbeing.

Sure, the response generally makes sense, based on people following their base compulsions rather than actually caring about the ethics. That doesn't justify it, though. Going up to a morbidly obese person and calling them a fatty makes sense if you model it as a disgust reaction to the fat and to the type of person who would let themselves get that fat, but that wouldn't justify such an action.

"[I]f you try to create a libertarian paradise, you will attract three deeply virtuous people with a strong committment to the principle of universal freedom, plus millions of scoundrels."

And to be fair, this is a problem not limited to weirdos with very strong feelings about the skin color of dwarves in Dwarf Fortress. XivModArchive was inspired in part by limitations and restrictions going on at NexusMods, and quickly had to deal with everything from anatomically-correct mounts to the "they're actually adults, they just look li- shotgun".

Is it illegal CP, or at least illegal depictions of imaginary minors? I don't think so, or at least it isn't in all major jurisdictions.

I don't think fully fake CP should be illegal. But it is very distasteful.

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