site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   35390 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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

OP's claim was completely different: " someone who is not already inured to their sight would almost certainly feel some level of disgust were he to encounter their average representatives." In other words, that the normal reaction to seeing someone in a wheelchair is one of disgust. That is the claim that I am taking issue with, not with the obvious fact that someone who uses a wheelchair is unable to walk.

These are the same claims, though, just worded a bit differently. Of course someone in a wheelchair is disgusting, to some extent; their handicap is depressing, their inability to do basic things is shameful. The world would be better, and that person would be better, if they weren't in a wheelchair. They are a permanent sign of something bad.

That doesn't make them the world's worst people. But it does bar them from ever being the best.

The OP explicitly referred not to "the dregs of society" but rather to average handicapped persons.

Same thing.

I have not claimed that tolerating them is a sign of virtue; in fact, I have claimed the exact opposite: That tolerating them, or at least not being disgusted by them, is normal.

Well obviously not, or we wouldn't have needed and still need social campaigns to support them, tolerate them, special olympics to make them feel included, etc., etc. You don't need to try so hard to make people do normal things. Children point and stare and make bad comments; that's normal. We have to chastise them until they learn to hide it.

Same thing

Now I just suspect that you are yanking my chain.

Honestly, I normally feel like that about what Minotaur writes, him coming off as a little edgy, but he's really explaining my perception of the matter quite correctly.

He is being utterly politically incorrect by the standards of current western society, but he's also very much factually right. Being disabled is a bad thing, and people naturally react negatively to it. The positive reactions we often display, observe and expect are entirely nurture.

But he isn't simply saying that people react negatively, nor that being disabled is a bad thing. He is saying that they are disgusting, that they are the dregs of society, and he likened them to a meth addict who pisses himself on a public bus. Hence, I strongly suspect chain yanking.

dregs

I'm really not too clear on what exactly the term implies in this context. If it's taken as implying low socioeconomic productive value (not status, mind - the disabled seem to have fairly high status, at least as an abstract group), then I think it's correct. Many kinds of severe disability will turn an otherwise productive citizen into a net drain, and it takes great effort to compensate if it is not outright impossible. Many disabled people simply cannot overcome their disability and contribute more to society than they cost it, economically and otherwise, and in that sense they are comparable to the meth addict you brought forth.

Still, it's a harsh choice of words.

Well, it is normally not taken merely to mean low value, but rather of no value. A quick Google of the term turns up this definition: "the most worthless part or parts of something. [eg:] 'the dregs of society.'" And the synonyms listed are: scum. refuse, rabble, vermin, down-and-outs, good-for-nothings. And note that the most literal definition of dregs is the stuff you throw out.

As for context, here is his exact quote:

The crippled are innately worse people. They are crippled. Those who rise above their limitation through hard work and grit warrant a certain respect, but for the most part, the broken are gross. Being hovered over by a super autist is uncomfortable. Watching a kid with a Downy stroke-face flip his shit is uncomfortable. Seeing some strung-out junkie piss himself on a bus arouses disgust.

If you can't acknowledge that the dregs of society are in fact viscerally repulsive, then tolerating them is no sign of virtue. Of course you tolerate them. They're fine, apparently!

And, of course, when I pointed out that "The OP explicitly referred not to 'the dregs of society' but rather to average handicapped persons," he replied, "Same thing."

So, while I understand the desire to be charitable, it seems pretty clear that he was indeed using the standard definition of the dregs of society, and that he is probably engaged in chain-yanking.

No. The disabled are in fact on the bottom rung of society. Not the absolute worst -- let's save that for predators, addicts, career criminals, etc -- but low enough to count as dregs.

The ideal society would be a society with no disabled people. How could disability be anything but horrifically low status?

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