site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25998 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 New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If no one is your in-group that makes things very simple, just don't boo anyone.

If no-one is my ingroup, then how can I have an out-group? Or do I practice radical compassion: yes, that German cannibal-murderer is very naughty, but it would be too judgmental of me to even say that he's being naughty. Cannibal-murderers are my out-group but I must not boo them!

Yeah, that's nit-picking. But I'm trying to say that I don't pick "okay, I don't like (spins tombola drum) people with septum piercings who eat quinoa and talk about their fur-babies, let me go search for a story where someone like that did something bad and then go complain about it". If Pope Francis goes out and does something stupid/wicked (sigh, let's not get into the fighting over that), I'll criticise him even though he's my in-group. The day Francis says "you know what? let's burn the gays!" I'll be there saying "No! Bad pope!" with the best (or worst) of them.

Criticism of people is allowed and always has been. Sneer applause lights with little content are not allowed and never have been.

Do you have honest confusion about the rules or do you just want to argue with someone?

If it's honest confusion tag another mod, or report this comment to get their attention. I'm on the road right now and can't respond in depth.

Sometimes I just want an argument. Sometimes I'm genuinely outraged/offended, I don't care about the party in question (individual or group) politics, this is just stupid goddamn nonsense for humans to engage in and it's dangerous and harmful as well.

But that can come across as "boo the outgroup" because a lot of the reports on here, unhappily, are people on the other side of the fence from me morally/politically/socially. Unless I slap big disclaimers on everything about "I am objecting to this on the grounds of this is an affront to the dignity of humans as a species, we should not behave like this", how is the difference to be made overt enough?

Take the moth girl: I'm sure she's personally a nice, caring person. EA isn't bad in itself. But the end result of the philosophy as she took it to an extreme was something unworthy of a human as a thinking entity. Now, is that "boo outgroup" because I'm not EA or vegan, or is that "I find this ridiculous at best and actively dangerous at worst, and I don't care if it was done by the Pope or someone I do agree politically and philosophically with"?

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