site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   28230 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 4, 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 New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The way I see it, voluntarily recusing oneself from the term is a rare example of something I'd consider to be a legitimate case of quokka behaviour. Certain circles in society have spent so much energy into establishing a belief or vibe that amounts to "left=good, whatever left happens to be", in no small part cashing in on the goodwill that the left that I associated with amassed - why should I let them have that goodwill and actually get to use it against me? A principled stand for words having a fixed meaning can't be had if you react to every successful redefinition of a word with a "fine, I guess its fixed meaning is what you say now".

gay marriage

I think I started seeing the warning signs there when proponents widely came out against legally equivalent "civil union" proposals. Sure, they could have argued against it on the basis that a difference in terminology might cause problems when you go abroad, or would be easier for hostile forces to rollback, and so on - but instead it was largely argued on the basis that the union ought to be recognised and validated in the same way as it is for heterosexual couples, which was the first significant foray into legal rights over someone else's thoughts and speech.

Sure, they could have argued against it on the basis that a difference in terminology might cause problems when you go abroad, or would be easier for hostile forces to rollback, and so on - but instead it was largely argued on the basis that the union ought to be recognised and validated in the same way as it is for heterosexual couples, which was the first significant foray into legal rights over someone else's thoughts and speech.

The latter is basically the same argument as the former though. The reason it might be easier for hostile forces to roll back is because it wouldn't be validated and recognized in the same way as it was for heterosexual couples. In other words, for it to be as safe as heterosexual marriage it must be thought of as equal to heterosexual marriage, not just be legally equal.

Progressiveness (in this context) requires changing minds, not just legalities, because legality is dependent on what the polity thinks. Historically we have been pretty bad at "separate but equal". Therefore it has to be just "equal".

Even if the effective mechanism (minds being changed) is the same, I think the difference between quietly hoping that people's minds will change and openly communicating the will to compel the change is significant; the latter shifts the window towards other forms of mental compulsion (of which we have since seen many) so obviously that only someone either reckless or more accepting of them than I can tolerate in my own camp would do it.

I think the difference between quietly hoping that people's minds will change and openly communicating the will to compel the change is significant; the latter shifts the window towards other forms of mental compulsion (of which we have since seen many) so obviously that only someone either reckless or more accepting of them than I can tolerate in my own camp would do it.

But if they are less open won't they just face accusations of attempting to change minds secretly and nefariously? If you assume that in order to get marriage equality secured (because it is at risk if not as we discussed) people's minds must be changed then your options are to be open or secret to varying degrees.

Openly seems the best option. We all are products of mental compulsion, our upbringing, the social values of our peers and the pressures they put on us to conform. There is no society without mental compulsion in this format. The thing we are fighting over is just which mental compulsions reign. And I would rather know about all of those competing.

Churches openly proselytize their beliefs. Would we better off if they were doing so secretly?

Churches openly proselytize their beliefs. Would we better off if they were doing so secretly?

Churches are also recognized as churches for purposes of separation of Church and State.

That doesn't have anything to do with the question in hand though. Would we be better off if churches or ideologies were attempting to change minds secretly or were being open? The fact the US has a specific separation of Church and State for historical reasons doesn't really impinge on this question. The same question would hold in the UK, which does not have such a separation.

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