site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   35361 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022

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.

26
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Did you listen to the speech? I don't see any blaming of minorities. The transgender culture and movement is toxic to families and there is limited data on the long term prognosis for children raised by transgender parents which I'm sure will be censored if anyone at all is studying the topic, which I imagine is impossible in academia now. Transgender people are mentally ill, unfit for raising children, and absolutely disgust me and I'm tired of pretending they don't.

Transgender people are mentally ill, unfit for raising children, and absolutely disgust me and I'm tired of pretending they don't.

Well, you don't have to pretend you aren't disgusted by them.

You do, however, have to follow the rules of discourse which still apply in our new space. Trans people are welcome to post here, there probably are a few around, and blankly asserting that they are all mentally ill, unfit for raising children, and disgusting, isn't acceptable. Just like you can talk about HBD, crime rates, your pet theories about the Holocaust, redpill philosophy, etc., but you cannot just say "black people/Jews/women suck." Even if that is what you believe.

You are right I will take heed

While I agree with the rest I find this curious:

blankly asserting that they are all mentally ill

But aren't they sufferers of Body Dysmorphia which was (is?) a mental illness? or why would they want to change their body if it wasn't a mental illness? Are you asserting that being trans is normal?

This has come up before, and it really depends on the tone in which you are making the statement. It's one thing to say that you do not believe that anyone has a "gendered brain" or is "born in the wrong body," and that trans people who genuinely feel these things are suffering from body dysmorphia, i.e., a literal mental illness. That allows room for reasonable discussions that don't just express contempt, like, "Okay, so how should we treat these people? Do we allow them to identify as the gender they think they are, or do we argue that therapy would be more useful?" While a lot of trans people would still object to those discussions (which is ironically a major part of the reason why we are here and no longer on reddit, sigh), reasonable people can treat these as legitimate arguments that can be made in good faith. As opposed to just saying "Trans people are crazy and disgusting."

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