site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32925 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 New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think that's idealistic and ignores human nature. We gravitate to people that are like us. Also, kids are dumb. They are going to internalize and notice when no characters look like them. That can convey the notion that positions of authority, or being the hero, is not really meant for them.

We can convey to them that they don't need to be the same color as the hero of a movie to relate to them, but at the same time it does beg the question of if they actually can rise to be the hero or successful or whatever, why isn't anyone in movies that looks like them doing that. And, really, i think even adults overestimate their ability to overcome shit like that; it can be internalized and lead to the perception of a barrier that doesn't exist. A lot of shit shit is occurring at the subconscious level.

We gravitate to people that are like us [in terms of race]. Also, kids are dumb. They are going to internalize and notice when no characters look like them [in terms of race].

This is the kind of thing that's easy to claim and also easy to believe, but I've yet to see it actually supported through evidence. Given that, I don't see why anyone should take this claim any more seriously than any other unsupported claim.

Surely we are not going to throw in question the notion that people gravitate to those like them, or even suggest that this is just some far out theory that has no sound backing.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/close-encounters/201812/why-do-we-people-who-are-similar-us

I don't think that link shows that we gravitate towards people who are similar to us in terms of race, particularly in the realm of watching fictional characters on screen. You can't make the leap from the broad tendency of interpersonal attraction towards similar people (from the meta-study that was the 1st link in that Psychology Today post) to there, not without going through many steps that each require empirical support.

what you're saying only makes sense if people do not believe that another person's race makes them like them. And people gravitating to those of the same race of them is a pretty strong corollary from people gravitating to those who are like them. To suggest that race would not make someone gravitate to someone else is to say that race is an insignificant part of people's identities, which I'm not sure how you can maintain in 2022.

Also, this was found based on a very quick google. I'm not sure why you don't think someone has looked into this before, especially given how prominent DEI is. I mean anti-racism is an entire academic field. I can, in the abstract, appreciate the approach of your convictions only going as far as the research, but you can only maintain a counterpoint on those grounds if you've done the research and found that the link has not been found to exist. Not if you just haven't looked into it, especially given that this is a fairly obvious point that is a very strong corollary from a pretty obvious point that has been proven.

To suggest that race would not make someone gravitate to someone else is to say that race is an insignificant part of people's identities, which I'm not sure how you can maintain in 2022.

Whether you're using "identity" to mean self-conception or social-conception, this is actually highly variable. There are some people whose race is very relevant either internally or socially, and others where it's next to completely irrelevant.

I'll admit that I'm not an academic in the field, but I have done the research within the role of activist and found that anti-racism isn't an entire academic field - it's an entire pseudo-academic field, and I also found the prominence of DEI has basically no root in someone looking into this and finding that it's actually the case (aside: it was largely because I did this research that I'm no longer in that role of activist). It's only because I'm not an academic in the field that I leave open the possibility that I missed something despite my having done the research to the best of my abilities already, which is why I ask if the research exists.

And the point you keep seeming to ignore is the context of fictional characters on screen. The leap from "interpersonal attraction to people similar to oneself" to "can't identify with [fictional depictions of] people who have other skin colors than themselves" is one that needs actual empirical support, not just "fairly obvious point that is a very strong corollary." That's simply not how science works, especially in the realm of something "soft" like sociology/psychology.

I agree that kids are dumb, and human nature may cause them to want to see characters who look like them. Where I would disagree is that this therefore means we should accommodate that. The point of raising kids is to not accommodate such things, and teach them to overcome those impulses.

For example, kids have the human tendency to make fun of anyone who doesn't fit in. This is undeniably human nature, and something children are very prone to. But we don't say "well that's just how it is, we have to let them pick on the misfit kids". We attempt to teach them to do overcome that natural tendency. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be the same in the case of kids who prefer to see someone with the same superficial characteristics as them.

like us

Ah yes, but along which axis? Same hair color? Same favorite food? Same clothes? Same language? Other socio-cultural markers? We, to a certain extent, get to define what it means to be "like us" and who "us" is. Staying stuck on racial grouping is profoundly limited thinking.

yes i meant the same hair color. Because there are all of those subcultures rooted in having the same hair. And people with the same colored hair have all had that same unique historical experience. And, first and foremost, because someone's hair color is how they primarily define themselves. Spot on.

  • -11

Yes, even hair color. Or hair type and style. Hair can absolutely be a snigificant cultural marker. Or a religious one. Hair colors even carry stereotypes about personal character. I'm glad you and I are on the same page.

You were doing pretty well standing your ground until now.

The only way I think this is a well intended and sound point is if you didn't sense that it was sarcasm.

Do you mean me or who you were replying to?

I think in the move over to this platform a good deal of civility and adherence to the sub's rules have slackened.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I felt your previous replies were even-handed, then you sort of seemed to give up and devolve into mockery. That's the opposite of steelmanning your interlocutor or discussing in good faith.

My race is definitely not how I primarily define myself. As a redheaded white person, my hair color ranks higher than race- I've been told that not caring about my race is a white privilege, which may be the case, but it's a privilege I think others deserve. Both hair color and race fall far below my sex in terms of identity.

All of those physical characteristics are orders of magnitude less significant to my identity than my personality characteristics. I primarily define myself in a way that doesn't involve my body at all- I am the thing that lives in my brain, hosted by my body. I identify with characters that make the decisions I would. As a caveat, I expect that also carries cultural values as a piece of group identity baggage.

I'm rambling a bit, so I'll get back to the point. Maybe identifying primarily as a race is a bad thing that we should not actively pursue. From personal experience, I don't think you have to think that way. Race is something that divides us; humanity unites us.

It's 2022 and you don't see how people who are not white might identify with their skin color even though you don't? When you meet black people you genuinely don't think their race is part of their identity?

I've been told that not caring about my race is a white privilege, which may be the case, but it's a privilege I think others deserve.

It's 2022 (not relevant but accurate) and I think it's time we stop treating race as a primary identity trait. This is a prescriptive position, not a descriptive one. It's not like I don't see race, but when I meet a black person I think of them primarily as a person and I would love for them to be able to do the same. I can't read minds, but I've definitely met black people whose entertainment is exclusively manga/anime so I imagine they either don't care about representation or don't identify themselves by race in a substantial way.

Worth noting also that plenty of white people do identify with their skin color, as evidenced by the regular expression of concerns of white extinction in this community or some of the replies upthread. I think those people should think of themselves differently as well, and I expect I have your agreement there.

Again, my apologies if I'm rambling. I am doing my best to go from thoughts to words here and having a rough time with it.

I've been told that not caring about my race is a white privilege,

I suspect that a more accurate statement would be "not caring about your [characteristic] is easy/a privilege when people with [characteristic] are a large local majority." If you've got something that stands out from most of the people around you, whether it's skin color, hair color, height, etc., that tends to be noticed and flagged as significant. People might refer to Jose as "the Mexican guy" in Vermont, but nobody's going to call him that in Mexico City.

And, first and foremost, because someone's hair color is how they primarily define themselves

It gets recursively difficult to accuse someone of begging the question when they're being sarcastic, so I'll just have to be glib:

People (including both OP's black kids cheering black superheroes, and a multitude of historical groups) primarily defining themselves by skin colour, is an error on their part, harmful to human flourishing, and film makers / critics should not be seeking to pander to it, encourage it, or perpetuate it.

This is ignorant about the nature of identity and how humans work. Identity is on what basis we define the us versus the them. And that is reinforced when there is a common historical and current experience. People gravitate to those who have had that same experience as them; race is not just some arbitrary aspect of who someone is. To assume the contrary is just obtuse. Like sure it would be great if we could re-engineer human nature, but we can't. you can't just ignore something as a reality because you think it's less than savory.

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