site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32853 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

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.

23
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In "holy shit" culture war moments, Kanye has lashed out at (((us))) on Twitter. He came out of the gate swinging by stating that:

... when I wake up I'm going death [sic] con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE The funny thing is I actually can't be Anti Semitic because black people are actually Jew also You guys have toyed with me and tried to black ball anyone whoever opposes your agenda

Please note that Kanye is using double-spaces instead of periods for some reason.

This comes shortly after he was pictured wearing a White Lives Matter shirt, and shortly before he asked rhetorically

Who you think created cancel culture?

As always, the reaction is worse than the action, and causes the story to explode. In response to accusations that Jews control the media and invented cancel culture, Jewish organizations have loudly declared that such accusations are anti-semitic and inherently untrue, and then demanded Kanye be cancelled. The irony appears lost on them. To the surprise of I'm sure absolutely no one, Kanye was quickly locked out of his twitter account.

Social media reactions have been mixed, to say the least. /pol/ has apparently decided that Kanye is one step removed from goose stepping his way down the isle at the Grammys, and is almost /theirguy/. Of course there's also a substantial faction who just spam n****r so I'm going to stop short of saying that Kanye has struck a blow for unity within the racist community.

/r/Kanye, which is dedicated to exactly what you think, is in full melt-down mode understandably.

I really don't have anything else to add to this monumental pile of flaming garbage. There is no redeeming anything buried here. Only more decay and hatred seeping into public spaces. I leave you with only this thought that has been said by far smarter men than I. Twitter delenda est.

Please note that Kanye is using double-spaces instead of periods for some reason.

Some phones autocorrect double spaces to period+space. He probably switched to one that didn't do that, and didn't proofread before posting.

When black people stray from the path of MLK and into Malcolm X, Farrakhan, and the Nation of Islam, they typically start blaming Jews, rather than 'white' people. The ability for gentiles to distinguish gentile white people from American Jews is basically an cognitohazard for black people. Once they see that roughly half of 'white' people in Hollywood, the media, in the top universities, are Jews, they start to wonder about their own oppression. If Jews, making up roughly 2% of the population, can be so visibly represented, but blacks, who make up 13%, aren't, then is it really the 'white' man, who is also underrepresented, really oppressing them?

Imagine if 30% or more of Hollywood actors, journalists, academics, were Muslims. Or Native Americans. Or gay (though it do feel like that sometimes, lol).

And despite gentile whites being underrepresented in basically all the 'elite' positions (other than politics), the push for diversity comes not at a reduction of Jewish overrepresentation, but by continuing to whittle away at the representation of gentile whites. And gentile white representation is being largely relegated to the white LGBT community.

So it is easy to see how some black people (and white people) get drawn into Jewish conspiracies. And really, if you're fighting for 'equity', that's the group you're going to have to wrestle with.

Anecdotally the white skilled trade class(mostly high IQ but inconsistently or poorly educated) seems really into antisemitic conspiracies at least to the extent of considering it politically incorrect to publicly disagree with them. And they don't have much cultural similarity with blacks, but have similar circumstances in a way.

So the ADL is getting skewered for their usual practice: denouncing people who, uh, defame Jews.

“Hey, this is a bad thing, especially since millions listen to him.”

What were they supposed to say? By throwing their hat in the ring, they’re “proving” his point, never mind the complete lack of calls to action. If they held back, then you have a public figure doing his thing, erasure of norms, and all the usual stuff they nominally exist to oppose.

I’d actually expect worse—staying quiet here would invite the same sort of accusations that the ACLU gets. “You had one job!” The usual suspects here would be griping about how the wokes have even captured the ADL.

It reminds me of calls for Donald Trump to disavow white supremacists. He recognized that the criticism would swing the same whether he accepted the premise or denied all wrongdoing.

It reminds me of calls for Donald Trump to disavow white supremacists. He recognized that the criticism would swing the same whether he accepted the premise or denied all wrongdoing.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=RGrHF-su9v8 President Trump Condemning White Supremacy Compilation

What were they supposed to say? By throwing their hat in the ring, they’re “proving” his point, never mind the complete lack of calls to action. If they held back, then you have a public figure doing his thing, erasure of norms, and all the usual stuff they nominally exist to oppose.

For obvious reasons, Jews are highly sensitive to being accused of conspiratorially controlling others. So they don't want that sort of talk being mainstreamed.

The problem is that they can't stop people from perceiving a prevalence of Jews in some parts of the nation and its institutions. The right thing to do would be to argue that anyone who thinks they've seen the Jews act this way is mistaken and provide the reasoning why, but that's an exhausting prospect - I don't blame anyone for not being willing to do it. But institutions should maybe be held to a higher standard.

So, they've defaulted to declaring that no one is allowed to say it and equated all words about the topic to a metaphorical Nazi McCarthy talking about lists of Jewish infiltrators.

They could pivot, I suppose, but that would require admitting that someone can talk about Jewish influence without being a deliberate agent or useful idiot for the anti-semites.

We must love each other, show affection for each other and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.

Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs including the KKK, neo Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.

We are a nation founded on the truth, that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our creator, we are equal under the law and we are equal under our Constitution.

I don't recognise that quote, who said that?

Given the context it shouldn't be surprising to be Donald J. Trump.

What were they supposed to say?

They could have said, "We are taking this opportunity to announce we are shutting down our organization and donating our assets to more deserving charitable organizations."

Now, why would they possibly do that?

To do the work of dismantling their privilege

Kanye, like JK Rowling and Elon Musk, are one of a handful of individuals who seem too big to be cancelled. All of these stunts and the predictable media pearl clutching only boosts his brand and attention as evidenced by social metrics , such as like and comments, on his tweets. Hardly anyone is actually genuinely offended by these tweets or the white lives matter shirt; it's just performance outrage or operant conditioning .

Kanye, like JK Rowling and Elon Musk, are one of a handful of individuals who seem too big to be cancelled.

It's not a handful of individuals, it's just that the average case never gets noticed.

There are smaller e-celebs like Youtubers, Twitter artists, etc. who do immoral things and then just ride the backlash out, though not necessarily with confidence. The rise of tools that allow these people to control who might influence their audience (Twitter allowing you to control who can respond, Youtube allowing you to remove comments or filter by default) took away the already weakened ability for people to spread negative information about an e-celeb.

I really wouldn't say that people can't spread negative information about e-celebs. You may be saying that "the average case never gets noticed" because these things sometimes do rely on the overall notoriety/notability of a given person or group. For example, I used to, and still do witness the emanations/echoes of drama from fanbases and circles I've never even heard of before (whether that be Friday Night Funkin' mod makers, smaller VTubers I don't follow, or even up-and-coming breakcore artists following in the footsteps of Sewerslvt).

There may be something to the idea of "too small to cancel," if that's what you're getting at, but I don't think that's typically the case. If anything, as per the Streisand Effect, a person trying to curtail the spread of negative information or downplay the severity of allegations can really only ever inflame its spread--or at least, make it more juicy for commentators hungry for clicks. Turning off comments, blocking people, etc., these all only come off as bad optics at best, and confirmation of suspicions at worst.

There are a few who have managed to keep on trucking, to some extent (JonTron still makes videos and his politics don't seem to factor into them, and Bunny_GIF still streams like normal and probably still has some of her long-time fans), but there's probably way more who have either quit or have changed their cultural output considerably.

No, it's not that. The information does get spread, but people just...forget. The internet moves fast and contains tools for allowing e-celebs to staunch the flow of harmful information to any followers, new or old.

This, combined with how the internet creates bubbles around each creator that aren't matched irl, means that the people we want most dearly to hear the information (the genuine supporters) are less likely, perhaps incapable of, hearing it. The people who hear the criticisms and the people who watch the e-celeb can easily become 2 separate groups.

That's a valid way of looking at it, but I think you're also forgetting about growth. If a video about drama you started gets ranked high enough on the YT algorithm, that's it, your growth is probably over with, because that's the first thing YouTube's search and recommendations will push people towards.

Growth is important until it isn't. With even a small audience who are willing to pay (and if you get enough followers before you hit drama, you'll probably get this group) or watch ads for you, you can continue on even as your growth is non-existent.

Moreover, Youtube doesn't automatically push drama/controversy videos. By and large, you get the videos you want to watch. Try searching for your favorite creator and see if you get any drama/controversy videos in the top 10 or 20. It's only when you specify you want those videos that you get them.

We'll see. I could see this be the start of Kanye's downfall. That said, there is only so far that even celebrities seem to fall. Jake Logan Paul still exists (I think) and they still play MJ on satellite radio.

and then demanded Kanye be cancelled

How does the linked tweet demand Kanye be cancelled?

It does do by calling him, ”deeply troubling, dangerous, and antisemitic, period."

I don’t think that makes for a workable definition of cancellation. There has to be a difference from mere criticism; it would be ridiculous to say Kanye’s original comments were cancelling Jews.

Dangerous is flat out lie. And also a mainstay of progressive vocabulary.

The was married to a Kardashian and didn't kill her. He is not dangerous he is a saint.

I haven't read all the source material here, but I would draw the line between criticising actions ("his comments are deeply troubling") and people ("he is deeply troubling"), where the latter implicitly denies the capacity for sincere repentance that the former leaves open.

At this point I take claims about danger to be implicit calls to cancellation.

The thing I find interesting (and which Freddie DeBoer has commented on extensively) is the vicious denials that mental illness can in any way be considered a factor when an obviously crazy person starts spouting crazy shit.

The mantra now is "mental illness doesn't do that," but mental illness clearly can make people say and do things they wouldn't if their illness was under control. That doesn't mean Kanye isn't genuinely an antisemite, and we can't know for certain he's having a BPD episode when he tweets stuff like this, but it's clearly another culture war angle. If Kanye started spouting rants about how black people should kill all whites, I suspect the same people outraged now would say "You have to understand that he is mentally ill and his words shouldn't be taken at face value; I hope he gets the help that he needs."

His behavior is suggestive of bipolar disorder. There are similarities to Elon musk in this regard, like making grandiose or outlandish statements or stunts (such as Elon's Twitter purchase) and then walking back on them as the dust settles. It's possible they have the same disorder and these acts are part of the manic phase.

Elon didn't walk back his twitter purchase out of bipolarity, he did it because his net worth crashed when the tech stocks did. No mental illness required as an explanation.

In my opinion.

If Kanye started spouting rants about how black people should kill all whites, I suspect the same people outraged now would say "You have to understand that he is mentally ill and his words shouldn't be taken at face value; I hope he gets the help that he needs."

I don't think this is quite right; mental illness wouldn't have to be invoked as an excuse/justification at all. The justification would simply be that this is the righteous anger of a black man born in a White Supremacist society that has oppressed him throughout his life. Sure, he may appear a little overenthusiastic in his quest for justice, but it is not our place to judge the way an oppressed person reacts against his oppressors.

At least, that's my belief based on how I've seen chants like "kill all men," "kill all whites," "kill all cis" supported throughout the years.

I mean, ‘Jews control the world for (insert nefarious purpose here)’ and ‘Jews aren’t real Jews because black people are instead’ are both beliefs that may be false, but they’re factual beliefs that are expounded by many not-obviously crazy people, so it doesn’t seem like you have to be mentally I’ll to believe them.

Sure, but Kanye West is known to be mentally ill, and when he rants about Jews, it's pretty incoherent and crazy-sounding. I'm not saying you have to be crazy to believe this stuff, or that Kanye only believes it because he's crazy, but his specific behaviors do map to someone having bipolar episodes. Which neither excuses nor explains everything he does, but I was pointing out how the current bluecheck party line is basically "No, he's just a bad person, do not even suggest that mental illness might be a factor."

And the argument "The CIA/NSA are malicious and spying on everyone" are often expounded by sane people, but "The CIA/NSA put a camera in my bagel" isn't, and "death con 3" seems more the latter than kevin macdonald or ron unz

"Death con 3" seems deliberate and funny to me. The man clearly has a knack for language, and I think it's more likely this is deliberate.

"death con 3" seems more the latter than kevin macdonald or ron unz

I do not like this argument, it seems to be a middle class view of the world which insists verbal or written errors like death con 3 demonstrate flawed thinking - except when they happen to a middle class person, then they are usually just brushed off as an amusing mistake. "Reverend blue jeans", "curve your enthusiasm" "all intensive purposes" - are these signs of a troubled mind?

Edit: Def con 1 through 5 in common parlance means a full mobilisation of the government's forces, usually against a threat, possibly even resulting in nuclear war. It is a five alarm fire, the rhetorical equivalent of this. In the world of rapping, def means cool, fly, streets ahead. Why would a rapper think the US government is using the word def to refer to a potential nuclear threat and not death, the likely result of a potential nuclear threat?

Sort of true, but not making verbal or textual errors, whether spelling, grammar, or just strangely constructed sentences, are very correlated with being at least moderately intelligent. But yes, good points can be made with poor spelling, and one should still pay attention to those when they exist.

I was just using 'death con 3' as a somewhat funny stand-in for the general incoherence of kanye's statement.

verbal or textual errors, whether spelling, grammar, or just strangely constructed sentences, are very correlated with being at least moderately intelligent.

People make those errors because they are smart?

To me the way some people - especially on social media - tend to focus on screwed up words celebrities have uttered strikes me as similar to someone on reddit dismissing an argument because the arguer spelled a word incorrectly. A way to avoid dealing with the substance of the argument. You didn't mean it that way, and I'm sorry I implied you did, but you have to admit the way you worded it looks similar to "lol he said death con 3, he is as crazy as someone who thinks the cia is bugging their bagel".

I made an edit and fucked it up, I meant people who are smart make fewer errors.

When focused on celebrities it's dumb yeah, but anything focused on celebrities is dumb. But if you're talking to someone in the SSC comments vs someone who's a normal person on facebook, the former makes many, many fewer errors in spelling or sentence construction than the latter.

I'm sorry I implied you did,

oh it doesn't matter at all in that sense, please do imply anything disparaging or demeaning so long as it's correct!

Yeah it is correlated with intelligence - and sanity - but I think the correlation is centred on repeated errors. How many albums has Kanye written now? Albums jam packed with some of the best wordplay this side of the 20th century no less. I know I am predisposed to think well of him, but I think it's more likely this was one of those situations where someone uses a term they have heard but not used before, and fucks it up because they misunderstood some part of it.

Outstanding response to my apology btw, high fives all round.

More comments

One doesn't need to be crazy to believe that some leftist journo guy is a sexual abuser, but that doesn't mean a crazy person can't have that as a crazy-induced/influenced belief. See, for example, Freddie's really bad craziness episode.

n****r

Just say nigger, man. We aren't in reddit any more.

There's really not much to go off on here. Kanye is one step removed from believing in lizard men at this point. People melting down at what he says for the uninterested observer is entertainment.

Honestly, as stupid as it seems, it’s probably best for people in certain careers or social situations to never have those particular semantic synapses fire. The consequences for misspeaking are too bad. If I had a public sector job I would probably refrain from even mentally pronouncing the syllables.

So here's the deal: you're allowed to use the word (in appropriate use/mention contexts), and other people are allowed to not type it out if they're not comfortable doing that. Clear?

Yes and?

Im not allowed to question his discomfort as silliness?

Don't be a jerk about it. If someone types "n*****" and you feel like it's your personal cause to tell people to write "nigger," that's being a jerk. We aren't banning words, but that doesn't mean we want people casually slinging slurs around just to flex. This isn't that kind of board and never has been, on or off reddit.

As long as I get to assume that when you say "the N-word" you're referring to N*tflix.

Just say nigger, man. We aren't in reddit any more.

I think it's improper ask this, and I don't mind the word myself at all. The point was clear, it avoided the silly 'x-word' construct, too much casual use would probably not be beneficial to the forum.

Just say nigger, man. We aren't in reddit any more.

I'd rather not. Besides my own personal distaste for the word, in the interest of not becoming a community of 10,000 witches I'd rather we kept and enforced some societal norms that serve to keep witches out. Among those is a reluctance to use words that serve no purpose other than to shock the conscience. Nothing is gained by saying nigger, whereas demonstrating a community value towards not saying that or other slurs helps to maintain our desire to optimize for light over heat.

"You are a nigger" and """he said "nigger" """ are a layer of reference apart.

I don't see any issue at not USING the word, but not MENTIONING is playing by the rules of the people who don't respect the use/mention distinction.

Imo the message is clear "We are level headed enough around here to not piss our pants at the mention of a word".

I think it is perverse to suggest that obfuscating language is optimising for light.

What changes if you say "n-word" over nigger? We know what you mean, and anyone who doesn't can be have it explained.

MonkeyWithAMachinegun isn't telling you it's optimizing for light, their point is that it serves to keep out the people who aren't interested in productive debate.

But that's not what it does, it doesn't keep out the people who aren't interested in productive debate, it simply declares this topic as out of bounds for debate. "it's cool you're thinking about it, but we have already decided it's not on." "ps the fact that you disagree with me on this tells me that you don't belong here - we're optimising for light, so you can fuck off!"

Truth is light. There is never ever ever a reason to alter a quote, or published work, and the last decade has proven this is no slippery slope, once we started censoring nigger out of quotes and published works, it wasn't long before we were burning books and rewriting history.

If we want to optimise for light - which was definitely part of monkey's point, if not the crux, we should tell people the truth - words have exactly as much power as you give them.

There's no truth being hidden, the mapping from "n-word" or n****r or whatever variant you want is fairly clear - the person means nigger, but just isn't comfortably saying it.

It would be one thing if Monkey said something like "Of course there's also a substantial faction who just spam racist stuff". This is vague and doesn't tell us what is actually being said. But I'm not sure what truth you think is being hidden by refusing to write the word out. The word continues to exist, people continue to encounter it, and they come to bear the same mapping eventually.

I do agree that Monkey views the refusal to use it as both optimizing for light and keeping out the undesirables. I re-read the comment.

I think degradation of the use/mention distinction is unhelpful with regard to “speak clearly”, hence at odds with the purpose of this forum.

What is gained by saying it?

[EDIT] - No seriously, what's the argument here? Doing things simply because someone told you not to is childish. The idea that liberty can be secured by rejecting all norms was tested to destruction, and it did not actually work at scale. The taboo exists whether you like it or not, and flouting it provides no benefit that I can see. The word is actually garbage.

I don't actually want you or anyone else banned for mentioning it. I'm not going to, though, because I don't see the point, and I'll make the argument against mentioning because I think it's a sound one on the merits.

flouting it provides no benefit that I can see.

I'm sure you're familiar with the recent popular quote:

Thinking about this in the frame of politics is wrong. This is theological. We’re smashing an idol and daring it to strike us down. If it cannot, it is a weak idol. Forbidding the word that begins with the letter between M and O is one of our enemies’ mightiest idols.

Smash their idols. Deface their idols.

Maybe paraphrasing a little there. The big unaddressed challenge is defanging the idol before you desecrate it...

I'm all for smashing idols, if it can be done effectively. You are not going to smash the hard-R idol, because it is a pure-tungsten idol the size of the moon.

On the other hand, this forum is not designed for idol-smashing. The purpose of this space is to discuss the culture war, not wage it. I appreciate that any claim that an action is waging the culture war can generate a mirrored claim that the demand for that action to be restricted is waging the culture war. I submit that in many cases, it's not actually hard to tell which is which if one examines the issue in good faith. The taboo in question is near-universal, and while one tribe has most of the dissenters, they are still rare even within that tribe.

This space is for trading arguments across the tribal divide. Effective, multi-polar internet discussion forums are extremely rare, and this one works because we insist on moderating the form of our speech, while maximizing bandwidth for content. We absolutely taboo words here, and not just scary racist words but any word at all if doing so results in a better discussion. This is not a space for performative "you don't like this word so I'm gonna say it more".

Whose quote is that?

It looks like Jordan Peterson went on a Nietzsche kick while coaching a kritik.

It's not that something is gained by saying it, so much as something is lost by giving the word so much power that we don't even respect the use/mention distinction. I think it's deeply unhealthy to treat the word as some sort of magical incantation that causes harm no matter the context. As such, I agree that we should seek to preserve the use/mention distinction as regards "nigger", or any other obscenities for that matter - not because it's a gain, but because being neurotic about the word is a loss.

It's not that something is gained by saying it, so much as something is lost by giving the word so much power that we don't even respect the use/mention distinction.

I agree that the collapse of the use/mention distinction does in fact cost us all something. I agree that it is silly to treat a word like it blights the lives of anyone who hears it. But the taboo didn't start here, and it won't end here. Mentioning it here in the ghetto doesn't make things any better out there, and it does actually have costs. You may believe that people put off by the word need to grow up, and that if that's the straw on the camel's back that results in them leaving then it's on them. And maybe you're even right. But I actually come here to talk to those people, and if they leave this place is useless to me. The conversations we have here burn a lot of charity, and so increasing the efficiency of that burn is useful. If they're going to be driven out of here, I'd rather they get driven out by a well-supported, evidence-based argument about the actual realities of, say, racial conflict, not by people proving to themselves that they can still type five specific letters without being smote by a vengeful deity.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221010112542/https://www.androidpolice.com/google-assistant-racial-slur-bleep/

This article popped up on the last android tech news site I still use(d). Someone complained that they could get google-assistant to say the n-word. When we've reached this point, yes, there's something to be gained from reminding people that it's just letters, it has no etymological connection with "niggardly," and entire songs use it as their sole lyric (and performers use it to fuck with fans), and it does not in fact cause people's ears to bleed or small animals to die when spoken.

I don't have to think peoples' ears bleed or small animals die to not use the word in question. I just have to think that it's an ugly word, and that people on the other side are going to take it's use as evidence that they should stop engaging here. And if I'm going to convince people that they should stop engaging here, by God, it's going to be by expressing my actual opinions and values in a calm, thoughtful, well-supported manner backed by a boatload of data, not because of five letters that people keep getting all weird over.

What is gained by censoring it? It's just letters arranged in a particular order, they can't hurt you. Treating words as though there mere utterance (even when just mentioning them) somehow causes harm is quasi-religious and stupid.

Words convey meaning, and that meaning cannot be arbitrarily restricted by the person speaking them. When you give a particular selection of letters you're committing yourself not only to the valence you hold, but to the valence everyone who sees them holds for them. Yes, this can and has been weaponized. Yes, that's reasonable grounds for concern. At the same time, we take our opposites as they are, not as we might wish them to be.

A counter point would be that we are supposed to write as if everyone is reading and we WANT them to read and take part. Given the term in question it is likely some people reading are likely to be upset or offended by it. If it is necessary to be used specifically for the post in question that should probably take precedence, but if everyone knows what you mean using the censored version, then that is a consideration worth thinking about also.

People who do not believe in the use/mention distinction are still people that we want to read here because they are a subset of everyone.

What's the limiting principle for this? Lots of people can be upset or offended by all sorts of things.

What if I find it offensive and upsetting when people censor words instead of spelling them out?

There isn't one. That reality will probably kill this forum long-term, as values-drift makes it completely impossible to communicate effectively across the tribal divide. Some people here regret that reality, and are trying to forestall it as long as possible. Of the actions taken to postpone that eventual tragedy, the one we're discussing here is quite minor.

This is not an arbitrary taboo someone thought up yesterday. It's one of the three or four most deeply cemented taboos our society has.

That is why I said it is a balance not a mandate. Having said that I suspect there are many more people offended by that particular slur than by writing the asterisks in n****r. From the POV of the point of this space, things that are inflammatory and the like are generally defined by the mods to be the big culture war clashes and that would seem to be a pretty obvious one.

At the end of the day we should be considering the best way to make our argument in the most palatable way we can. For me that is the most important point of this space.

Then f**k you.

You're trying to be too clever by half. Yes, I get what you're doing here, and it's still not the kind of post we are going to tolerate.

What is gained by saying it?

Nothing is gained or lost by saying it.

The frame of the arguments as a whole are lost by not saying it in a mention context. You are arguing inside of the frame of those who see no distinction between use and mention. And in my eyes not respecting that distinction is witch behavior. Just a witch from a different school of the Dark Arts than the one you are scared of.

Nothing is gained or lost by saying it.

Others differ, and judge accordingly. I want to talk to those others about matters of import, and that is going to be difficult enough with the opinions I actually hold. Why make it harder by violating taboos for no actual benefit? I'm here to have conversations with people I disagree with. Those conversations actually benefit me. Misspelling "naggers" does not.

To a first approximation, everyone has taboos. I can accept that some rare, uncanny individuals are sufficiently... outlier... that they honestly don't, but this seems more like a disability than a superpower from where I'm sitting. It doesn't enable conversation in any way that I see. It doesn't gain knowledge or grow understanding. Those are the things I'm here for, so I'm going to argue that it's a net-negative, and self-censoring, while a bit silly, is still the superior play. Some might see this as abdication to Blue dominance. I think that is silly, and is more an appeal to magical words than any self-censorship argument ever could be.

It's not brave. It doesn't make a point. no one's impressed. We've all heard the arguments for and against for decades. I'm quite comfortable predicting that the mods here aren't going to ban mentions, so there's no inherent slippery slope argument greater than the implicit one from attempting communication across a steadily-widening tribal divide. All there is is what you want to do, and why.

I may have missed a valid explanation somewhere along the line, but how are we defining "witches", exactly?

Witches in this community's context are racists, sexists, bigots, etc. The kind of people who really do want the freedom to publicly declare their hatred for others.

You have to remember that this entire space is descended from SSC, which was very much a light-blue space in a deep-blue sea. There, people shared a clear view that bigotry was evil and its servants were likewise. Hence, they are witches.

Witches in this community's context are include racists, sexists, bigots, etc. The kind of people who really do want the freedom to publicly declare their hatred for others.

Witches in this community's context are just people with whom members of the blue tribe are embarrassed to be associated, which is a much larger set than you describe. The ur-example is people who want the freedom to publicly declare their love for others rather than their hatred...

Gessler can be defied. In extremity, Gessler can be shot. That is the difference, in my view.

Rationalists seem to have this idea that things should make sense, that reason should prevail. I see this as a failing. Human reason is flawed and limited, and the structures built upon it are riddled with flaws. "This doesn't make sense to me" isn't actually proof that the thing in question is broken. Life is full of small indignities, frustrations and compromises, some of which can be fought, most of which have to be merely accepted. If there were an actual benefit to mentioning the word, I'd retract my argument. I don't see one, because I think mentioning it has downsides, and I don't see any actual upsides.

Fighting linguistic taboos led us to where we are now, and I think it's pretty questionable whether it was ever going to lead anywhere else. Words have power, and that power is well-described, like it or not, by the term "magical". Sure, it's all social consensus. But it's actually a consensus, and it's vastly beyond the ability of individuals or small groups or even large ones to change.

If I tell you I'm emptying the ocean with a teaspoon, it's not actually more rational to offer me a backhoe, or even bagger-288. Like, it's not actually a question of scoop size; none of this is at all how the ocean works: water seeks low points, evaporation and rainfall, this isn't going to work. So too with the question at hand.

Concur on the witch density. Time to get on our arguing pants.

If there were an actual benefit to mentioning the word, I'd retract my argument. I don't see one, because I think mentioning it has downsides, and I don't see any actual upsides.

I generally agree with your position here, but I'd argue for one particular exception: when making a precise argument that fuzzed mentioning will muddy, and in particular, when quoting someone else for accuracy. If you're going to attribute a string in quotes to someone else, be clear and exact in what was said.

So can the pearl-clutchers.

I don't think they can; I mean, there's no individual person, it's a massively-distributed network representing the top 60-70% of power, wealth and influence across both tribes. I think the social consensus is too strong, and the benefit sufficiently hypothetical, that it's simply a bad choice. I agree that bullies should be defied. I do not think beating their knuckles with my nose is the way to do it.

There is no chance that using the word in question will damage the taboo against it. Nor will larger-scale attempts to damage the taboo be seen as a positive action. Nor will making a fight of it actually undermine the power of the bullies in any way. They can do this; pretending they can't isn't resistance, it's stupidity. They are not imposing a rule arbitrarily, but rather exploiting a rule that came about for good reasons: Slavery, Jim Crow, the actual legacy of actual racism. That reality is where they're getting most of the power in this instance. It's a kill-zone, so why walk into it?

If they said it's bad to spray-paint swastikas on synagogues or wear white sheets and pointy hoods in public, is it "giving in" to not do those things either? I mean, it's just shapes and clothes, right?

I share your disdain for the word nigger. It is an ugly word used by witches and edgelords. I type it out because I am even more annoyed by the utter annihilation of the use-mention distinction and the American resurgence of believe in magic words of power.

This is exactly my reason for mentioning the word.

I won't call anyone a nigger but refusing to type out that word is just playing by their arbitrary rules that assigns magic power to a string of letters. Why should I follow an irrational and nonsensical custom?

Why should I follow an irrational and nonsensical custom?

As mentioned above, you may want to consider it when posting here specifically because we are supposed to write as if people who think that way are reading and we WANT them to read. So while your argument has merit, it should be balanced against the other norms, customs and preferences that are encouraged here.

If your argument hinges on using the word itself then that is probably fine. If the same argument can be made while censoring it, then we probably should.

If I am making an argument about blasphemy, then I can blaspheme, but I should be aware that Catholics might be reading and that I want them to read, so that I should be careful exactly how I do so and give it due consideration, no matter if I think their position is magical or irrational.

I miss the 2005-2012 inter-regime period where you could say almost whatever you wanted without the inquisitors showing up

The taboo exists whether you like it or not, and flouting it provides no benefit that I can see.

I don't think that's quite true. Taboos are not objective facts, they are a social consensus. Your argument that an individual alone cannot move social consensus is true enough, but many individuals acting in concert certainly can. Likewise, while it is true that in any given election, your individual vote probably doesn't determine the outcome, it does not follow that all voting is pointless. Taboos can be destroyed, it this is normally done by a small group violating it and not being punished, then more and more, until there is no clear social consensus and the taboo is gone. What objection could you have to that, other than that the taboo is taboo, which is circular?

Maybe he censors the word because he finds it personally distasteful or objectionable.

I'm not Jewish, I'm Catholic. I have to be honest, though, I'm a bit jealous of the Jews. At least they're willing to defend themselves.

Is what Kanye said threatening at all? No. Was he calling for "death" to anybody? No, he misspelled "DEFCON". But the reaction is predictable. Everybody regardless of how much /r/atheism posting they have done in that past immediately coming to condemn him for saying something critical.

Jews encourage their kids to learn Hebrew. They assign a cultural importance to their history. They encourage people to marry within their culture.

These are good things, or at least good things if you care about the continuation of Jewish culture. I wish that the Catholics could take a lesson from them and start teaching Latin again, start acting like they control a majority of the supreme court, and start self advocating. Build Cathedrals because you're the Catholics and you can and you have a 2000 year history of doing so.

I actually like Kanye West. I think he's completely manic, but...I think that is the basis of his artistic genius (and I do think he is an artistic genius). I also really like the jews. This whole thing has a weird timbre to me because it's groups/people I like supposedly fighting each other but doing so by acting out the thing that makes me like both of them. Interesting.

Please note that Kanye is using double-spaces instead of periods for some reason.

On my phone that does insert a full stop.

Who you think created cancel culture?

As ever, right sentiment, wrong target. As a slight aside, I had been meaning to ask something like this for a while now, but I often don't wonder if most people who have a problem with Jews just have a problem with the fact that they're allowed to practice healthy, normal in-group bias, and their own group isn't?

Diversity for thee but not for me. The ADL, the organization which advocates for mass immigration changes tone when it comes to Israel.

On my phone that does insert a full stop.

Yeah, I suspect Kanye just didn't think about it because double spacing for periods exists in texting.

I don't have anything useful to say about this... I don't think Kanye is a mentally stable human being, but I'm not sure many humans at that level of fame can be stable. Existing on that scale is so far outside the ancestral environment that I suspect brain stuff just gets weird.

What immediately struck me about this case was how clearly it feeds Kanye's argument. When saying "the Jews are shutting down everyone who disagrees with their agenda" gets you shut down by organizations substantially owned and/or operated by Jews, like, what--you think he's gonna conclude "oh, I must be mistaken?" This is on the same rhetorical playground as the well-trod "canceling conservatives just gets them bigger book deals, 'left media bias' is obviously a myth."

I can't help but be reminded of Whoopi Goldberg's suspension over what sounded to me as mostly weird commentary--not anti-Semitic. The antipathy or even just skepticism so many black Americans have expressed toward Jews is remarkable. But I can imagine being a black person whose community openly expresses frustration at whites or Asians or Hispanics "keeping me down"--in such an environment, why wouldn't a statistically wealthy, powerful group of phenotypically white people be permitted targets of the same basic criticism?

It also seems related to stuff like this. Armed black militants demanding reparations and a closed border seems like evidence that some blacks, at least, have decided that they don't want to be pawns for either "Left" or "Right" politics. Not sure that works out for them, in a two-party left-right coalition environment... but maybe?

And yeah. Twitter delenda est.

Armed black militants demanding reparations and a closed border seems like evidence that some blacks, at least, have decided that they don't want to be pawns for either "Left" or "Right" politics.

The article contains a quote suggesting that they're not gonna start voting R--perhaps they feel like they can just demand their Democratic representatives to give them what they ask for?

Interesting development, if it goes anywhere beyond this one incident.

The antipathy or even just skepticism so many black Americans have expressed toward Jews is remarkable.

Is it really remarkable? It's super old and to me seems to have gone down over time. Decades ago you had articles like these: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/29/specials/baldwin-antisem.html

Summary of above:

  • Everyone believes Jewish suffering is heroic, black suffering is of their own fault, so the negro envies the jew

  • Jewish suffering is decoupled from their success in America, opposite to blacks

  • Jewish people don't behave sufficiently differently from other white christians to be excepted from black anger

I can't help but be reminded of Whoopi Goldberg's suspension over what sounded to me as mostly weird commentary--not anti-Semitic.

It may not be anti-Semitic but it's not weird to me that she got suspended for this.

She committed two cardinal sins in idpol-land, where victimhood is status:

  1. "It’s not about race. It’s not about race. It’s about man’s inhumanity to man.”. She tried to remove the specificity of the Holocaust. Just as you can't just say "all lives matter" you can't take away the fact that Jews specifically suffered this, anymore than you can make slavery about "man's humanity to man". That is too vague and doesn't saddle one group with the responsibility to pay the debt.

  2. “But these are two white groups of people!”. She placed Jews in the camp of other white people, which is anathema to liberal Jews who jealously guard their right to secede from whiteness and enter the victim camp when it gets a bit uncomfortable (including when they make it uncomfortable).

I also personally think that her comments are just silly and historically illiterate (the Nazis attributed a specific place to Jews in their ideology). But I don't think that's why it was so outrageous.

Whoopi Goldberg was totally in the right - after the definitions of race and racism were adjusted to make sure that it was impossible to be racist against white people, "the holocaust wasn't about race" is actually correct.

Freddie deBoer's take on it.

Right now my model of Kanye's antics is that he's Bipolar (which helps explain his tendency to spit out tons of new artistic works at once then go silent for a while) and is very inconsistent in taking medications, so he will have these periodic times where he's manic and just spewing absolute insane rhetoric which he only half-believes at best, but nobody is going to actually stop him from spewing it, and who can tell if its just part of an act anyway?

Nothing in the current kerfuffle contradicts this model, so I'm not updating on this.

My only note is that if Kanye is dealing with mental illness then it might be best if social media companies were openly showing some compassion here and couched things as trying to protect his mental health rather than silence him on behalf of any group.

Nothing in the current kerfuffle contradicts this model, so I'm not updating on this.

I can throw in another data point.

Which is that the...flirting with antisemitism and antisemitic figures that is well-known in the rap world and, arguably, beyond just that part of African-American culture.

Ice Cube used to hang out with antisemitic Nation of Islam types. Nick Cannon had a kerfuffle not too long ago where -notably- his anti-white racism was given a pass but he got in trouble for his statements about Jews*. IIRC black Women's March leaders had trouble with Jewish women and supported Farrakhan of the NOI. Other prominent figures like Kendrick also had links to black Hebrew Israelites in their music despite Hebrew Israelites being antisemitic appropriators.

Kanye himself has associated himself with Farrakhan, who pops up throughout hip hop and these stories like a bad penny.. Seriously, he seems to have links to everyone and gets defended by huge rappers more than any comparable white figure.

So we probably still should err a bit on the side of "Kanye is kind of unstable and has a track record of stirring shit up so who knows?" but I'm also more inclined to believe that Kanye actually believes this shit and is also unstable and surrounded by enough sycophants to not understand that this is the one rail you don't touch.

* A lot of these situations seem to be shocking only insofar as liberal Jews expect to not be treated like other white people in anti-white rhetoric. Another reason to not believe that it's just impossible for Kanye to believe: they already believe it about most other white folk, why not Jews?

My experience is that bizarre(in the truly strange sense, not in the ‘why are the Nazis black now’ sense) antisemitic conspiracy theories are widespread in the black community and Kanye has a pretty good chance of hearing these things from respected community figures.

Yeah, I'm mostly a spectator but I remember growing up there were endless Illuminati conspiracy theories around rappers.

Which prompted Cyhi the Prynce's concise rebuttal: "what makes you think Illuminati would ever let some niggas in?"

Which is that the...flirting with antisemitism and antisemitic figures that is well-known in the rap world and, arguably, beyond just that part of African-American culture.

but I'm also more inclined to believe that Kanye actually believes this shit and is also unstable and surrounded by enough sycophants to not understand that this is the one rail you don't touch.

A cursory Google search shows me that Kanye has collaborated with one Noah Goldstein on no less than 5 projects in the past 12 years, so he can't be THAT Antisemitic. Or at least, wasn't prior to 2018.

Or Goldstein was one of the good ones :)

The reaction looks disproportionate, he only shifted to DEFCON 3, taking out his communication infrastructure, should result in a DEFCON 1 response from Ye.

Can't it be both anti-semetic and true? Truth is often anti-semetic, and racist and misogynist and misanthrorpic, etc.

In my view, truth may be uncomfortable (and often is), but it is never racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, etc. Racism et al. isn't bad simply for being hateful, but also for being false.

Many people claim that unequal outcomes in math education is the result of systemic racism, because all individuals having an inherent equal ability is truth.

Suggesting mathematic ability is distributed unequally amongst cohorts that align with ancestral origin is to many racist despite it providing a demonstrably better description of reality.

Many people claim that unequal outcomes in math education is the result of systemic racism, because all individuals having an inherent equal ability is truth.

Many people believe stupid things. Even granting the cases where the belief is honest, truth remains regardless of belief.

Suggesting mathematic ability is distributed unequally amongst cohorts that align with ancestral origin is to many racist despite it providing a demonstrably better description of reality.

Yes, "racism" is often applied with wild abandon far beyond what is, in my view, its proper use case. Though in your specific example, I suspect the real issue is ignorance of the facts in most cases.

Yes truth remains regardless of belief. I've not found a reliable way to prevent or stop people from believing stupid things. Often it seems we send PMC youth to university to be indoctrinated in belief of stupid things.

It's because truth remains regardless, truth can be racist and sexist and etc. Those aren't rebuttals against the nature of truth only a conflict with the objectors concept of the nature of reality.

This is smart, because he couldn't remember if 1 or 5 was the most severe, so he hedged his bets.

Perhaps he’s hit 1 now, but we can’t tell due to the lack of infrastructure?

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