site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32848 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.

Chapter 47 in the Warren Files

https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/mary-ellen-turpel-lafond-indigenous-cree-claims

CBC discovered that some of Turpel-Lafond’s claims about her Cree ancestry, her treaty Indian status, the community where she grew up and her academic accomplishments are inconsistent with publicly available documents.

The hilarious combination of white hate and white guilt combines to push affirmative action programs to benefit the "marginalized" but resists categorizing who exactly that is. The result is this sort of thing, a pile of rich, privileged white twits cosplaying Injun to the seal-clapping of the morally righteous class. While we beat our breasts about blackface at a Halloween party, these jackasses are appropriating the affirmative action slots of the people they claim to be supporting with their "activism". These are the people who style themselves the moral superiors of "deplorables".

Similar to becoming "queer" (in genZ):

Only 53 per cent of Gen Z consider themselves exclusively straight, and 40 per cent have patterns of attraction that could be described as queer.

https://www.dazeddigital.com/life-culture/article/57149/1/its-official-gen-z-is-really-really-gay

Since being straight white cis is like being the devil in the current media environment, and bonus points are given if you aren't one, why not just identify as queer? Similarly, people don't want to be just white, that's dusty boring dinosaur boomer stuff.

And Warren wanted to be a cool fellowkid who totally keeps up with the young ones.

We are talking about identity, right, not about sexual attraction? Because that quote is actually not about identity (although it is stupidly written to imply that it says something that the author explicitly says is doesn't). This is the complete quote:

Looking at who Gen Z actually say they are attracted to – rather than just how they identify – provides even more notable results. Only 53 per cent of Gen Z consider themselves exclusively straight, and 40 per cent have patterns of attraction that could be described as queer.

And the immediately preceding paragraph says:

Within Gen Z, only 71 per cent of people identify as straight (compared to 91 per cent of boomers) and 14 per cent identify as bi or pansexual (compared with only 2 per cent of boomers.) Interestingly, given how often you hear that lesbians are ‘going extinct’, Gen Z are more likely to identify as lesbians than Gen X-ers or Boomers. Another surprising figure is that more Gen Z people are identifying as asexual (5 per cent) than gay (2 per cent) or lesbian (3 per cent).

So, pct identifying as straight is 71 pct; it is the pct who say that they have zero sexual attraction to people of the same sex that is 53%. (In other words, many people identify as straight despite having at least a tiny bit of attraction to those of the same sex, which implies that identifying as straight is not so verboten after all; if it were, those people would identify as bi).

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