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 Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

blinded by your own rage; incapable of even reading when the topic makes you too emotional.

Now I understand. You're just here to troll. Thank you for letting me know.

I'm here for a discussion where people actually read each other and respond in a way that is, uh, responsive to what they have said. That's kind of the purpose of this place. Ah, I do see that you're new here.

Ah, I do see that you're new here.

Really nice try, I am on SSC/TheMotte since 2016 never replying much but looking at the way you always respond to others, with a sense of superiority and condescension, never really reading what your interlocutor is saying, with a veneer of sneering, make me think that the only reason you comment is to elicit a faux-paus in the commenter so you can chuckle at those evil atheists that wanted proof of your metaphysical assertions while you keep repeating, comment after comment, that are absolutely and supremely true. It almost seems like that your first sentence:

I'm here for a discussion

it's actually false.

where people actually read each other and respond in a way that is, uh, responsive to what they have said.

I've, obviously, actually read what you posted. And I responded to your assertion that you cannot call the evil atheists deluded otherwise the mods scold you and I responded with an example of a recent thread where it didn't happen. What you actually wanted was someone that said to you: "Yes, those evil atheists are actually evil, they always say evil thing like that metaphysical assertion to be presented as reasonable need at least a speck of proof instead of an ipse dixit appeal to authority [or worse, in you case ego dixi]".

That's kind of the purpose of this place.

Yes, it seems like it is not clear to you and think that this place is your platform to have your claims asserted without opposition. In a coven of contrarian quokkas? Are you sure that it isn't you that haven't understood the purpose of this place?

I responded to your assertion that you cannot call the evil atheists deluded otherwise the mods scold you and I responded with an example of a recent thread where it didn't happen.

No, you didn't. You said:

We have recently had a thread about how faith healing is totally totally totally true I swear but the existence of atoms? No sir! I haven't ever seen an atom, therefore God.

That is not remotely the same. Someone simply making a bad argument for a god is miles away from calling atheists delusional. At least, it is to rational people who aren't overly emotionally invested and view literally any argument for a god, no matter how poorly constructed, as a personal attack.

It seems like it is not clear to you and think that this place is your platform to have your claims asserted without opposition. In a coven of contrarian quokkas? Are you sure that it isn't you that haven't understood the purpose of this place?

See how easy and how unhelpful it was to just assert that about you?

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