site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25993 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 25, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What about the Naturalization Act of 1790?

I said no serious attempts, not no attempts; the Chinese Exclusion Act is actually a better example, since the 1790 act didn't prevent anyone from coming here, just from becoming citizens (and in those days you didn't need to be a citizen to vote).

I believe that it should have

And a lot of people on the left believe that it should have included a lot of things that it didn't that you'd probably find abhorrent and that doesn't change anything. Your preference is your preference, and the default is the default; it's what we started with, and if you want to change it the burden is on you to demonstrate that it's necessary. I'm not saying that your opinion is illegitimate, just that it doesn't have any moral high ground over other opinions that the left holds that are also obvious examples of rent seeking.

Leaving the borders swinging wide-open is the national equivalent of blinding yourself in my opinion.

I hate to do this, but this is almost literally a textbook example of a straw man argument. No one outside a few on the far left is advocating open borders. The current argument about the border is whether to raise numbers up a bit or restrict them further, and whether Biden's current manner of dealing with the border is enough. Border patrol agents are still working. People are still getting deported. The argument boils down to whether Biden should be taking actions that may or may not actually have any effect.

I hate to do this, but this is almost literally a textbook example of a straw man argument. No one outside a few on the far left is advocating open borders. The current argument about the border is whether to raise numbers up a bit or restrict them further, and whether Biden's current manner of dealing with the border is enough. Border patrol agents are still working. People are still getting deported.

The far left doesn't advocate opening borders, the borders are already open. They just attack anybody who wants to do anything about it.

People are still getting deported.

If you deport a thousand people and let in a million, you are still technically 'deporting' people.

The argument boils down to whether Biden should be taking actions that may or may not actually have any effect.

Yes, we get told that arresting gang members would not do anything about crime, until somebody does it and then 'at what cost???'

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