site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   34671 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 29, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, a couple of months ago (I think - time is a flat circle), there was a conversation and some slight complaining about how center-right parties in Europe never work with "far-right" parties, and how that's proof that the elite are against the votes, etc. and it's actually unfair the center-right aligns with the center-left instead of the far-right and there was even some talk it was somehow undemocratic.

Well, I just saw a poll about voting preference for Kamala Harris among German voters that shows something important about the underlying feelings of actual electorate-

https://x.com/ElectsWorld/status/1818288736549159376

% who would vote for Vice President Harris (D):

Grüne: 99 %

SPD: 92 %

CDU/CSU: 89 %

FDP: 85 %

BSW: 52 %

AfD: 26 %

Forsa, 26/07/24

Obviously, the SPD, Green, and AfD numbers all make sense. For those unaware, BSW is the new anti-immigrant economically left-wing party recent created by a former prominent Die Lienke member, so they're sort of cross-pressured on this, ironically.

But, the important number to show is the CDU/CSU & FDP numbers. This is why these center-right parties end up aligning w/ the center-left because on the big issues of the day, the CDU/CSU & FDP voter is closer to the SPD or Green Party than the AfD

Obviously, yes, the chances are some of that 15% in the FDP or 11% in the CDU/CSU will eventually also move to the AfD and obviously, another chunk of the voters if they actually lived in the US would end up voting for Trump the same way a lot of normal Republican's who have voted for Republican's their whole life end up voting for Trump, but this isn't a case of some Elite spitting in the face of their voters and aligning in some globalist conspiracy against the voters.

No, the voters are with the leadership for the most part on this. This isn't going to be correct for every country, but this is also why most of the center felt closer to Communist's than the former National Front in the French parliamentary elections as well. As I've said before, people want harsh immigration policies, they're just not willing to accept the rest of the right-wing culture war and lack of competence that comes with it when it comes to current far-right parties like the AfD.

If you truly think Muslim immigration is the worst problem facing Europe, then that person needs to accept LGBT rights, a massive welfare state, supporting Ukraine, and so on, and you might get somewhere.

As I've said before, people want harsh immigration policies, they're just not willing to accept the rest of the right-wing culture war and lack of competence that comes with it when it comes to current far-right parties like the AfD.

Another possibility is that Europeans want fewer immigrants, but they are unwilling to actually do anything about it.

If the modal European could wave their hands and stop immigration they would. But if they see a picture of a crying child they will cave every time.

If you truly think Muslim immigration is the worst problem facing Europe, then that person needs to accept LGBT rights, a massive welfare state, supporting Ukraine, and so on, and you might get somewhere.

I'm not sure these beliefs are as foundational as you think, given that they are of such recent vintage. As always, signalling has much more explanatory power than principles. The issues don't matter. Tribes do.

If the modal European could wave their hands and stop immigration they would. But if they see a picture of a crying child they will cave every time.

I honestly think, if that happened today, people would be tapped out on sympathy. But, as with the homeless problem in some parts of America, it just doesn't seem to matter what they think.

You'll get sucked into a loop of activists, judges and feckless government decisions (the latter always blaming the first two) and by the time you realize what's going on the people who should have been deported haven't been for years and nothing has changed.

I'm not sure these beliefs are as foundational as you think, given that they are of such recent vintage.

They're the new foundation. The old one was exclusionary.

Which has some implications for adopting it as a way to keep out migrants.

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