site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   28234 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
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't think I'm making anything too complicated. I'm simply trying to find out if there is any room for rational argumentation on your view of the moral world, where we can say that certain statements have truth value... or whether it's all vibes-based. I think this last comment is by far the most clear embrace of the vibes-based view of the world. Whereas before, it was really hidden in language that seemed to imply other things.

And sure, I understand that you think that everyone else is just purely operating in a vibes-based way, too. That was the essence of what ZRslashRIFLE said, only much more compactly. I get that idea. I just sort of wish you had said that twenty comments ago, at least no later than when I linked to him. And I really hope you won't be so loose with your language in the future.

I was clear. I would suggest you simply read what is said and not make assumptions about underlying motivations as you did. That will almost always lead you astray.

If the only question left is how clear your early statements were, perhaps we could agree to put it up to a poll? You can even choose some venue other than TheMotte, so that we can get more normie opinions rather than folks who 'make everything way too complicated for their own good'. But especially if we do run the poll at TheMotte, I would suggest we use a different context, just to put a slight barrier in front of people who might recognize the original. Something like:

Suppose Alice is talking to Bob. Alice asks Bob, "Why do you think homosexual sex is wrong?" Bob replies, "Because I do. Having homosexual sex is wrong, especially for fleeting pleasure. My moral intuitions are based upon my upbringing, my experiences, the social forces brought to bear upon me and are largely immune to rational change. I can't think myself into believing that homosexual sex is moral." Alice persists, "But you are asexual and can't really speak to anyone valuing fleeting sexual pleasure; those people think it's fine." Bob responds, "Of course they think it's moral. Everyone thinks their own views are moral. But just because I understand that they think their beliefs are moral does not mean I have to agree they are correct. What is defined as moral is based upon what values they were inculcated with."

Which of the follow do you think best describes Bob's position?

a) There is no sense in which any moral claim about homosexual sex being wrong is "correct" or "incorrect"; there is no way to claim that homosexual sex is "wrong" or "not wrong". There are only different people who have different beliefs based on their own experiences/opinions. It is wrong for Bob to engage in homosexual sex, but it is not wrong for others to engage in homosexual sex, if their experiences/opinions consider it moral.

b) Homosexual sex is wrong, and people who claim that it is not wrong are incorrect in their assertion, even though they choose to define it as moral for themselves based upon the values that they were inculcated with.

Any modifications you would propose?

I have no interest in that whatsoever. And I think the fact that you are proposing it, still shows you are struggling to even understand the basics of my position. I'd suggest the inferential distance is too great and further effort expended is going to be a waste, so I will exit the conversation here.

I clearly understand more than the basics of your position... I just had to drag it out of you. The only thing left in question is the clarity of your exposition. If you would like to continue having people misunderstand you, that is a problem of your own making. If you'd like to see if there are ways that you can be more clear, I am willing to help. I can also jump in threads in the future and try to head off any misconceptions that other Mottizans might have about your comments. Whatever it takes to help everyone understand each other better.

I obviously can't stop you jumping in where you like, but I don't think it is something I will find helpful at all. Quite the contrary.

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