site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   34593 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 2, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So far as I'm aware, every prominent recent example of a person openly identifying as transracial or being exposed as a racial charlatan (in the sense of trying to pass themselves off as a member of an ethnic group they're not, by subterfuge) has been a white person. The canonical example is of a white female academic, activist or politician who presents herself as Latina, Native American or more rarely black, in order to secure a job which is explicitly or implicitly ringfenced for members of such groups. But they don't seem to be doing this cynically, as an expression of their contempt for subaltern ethnic groups. In essentially all cases of note, the person in question seems so socially progressive and steeped in post-colonial theory that they almost seem to wish they really were members of these ethnic groups, and so they're playing an elaborate game of Butlerian performative declaration (clap your hands if you believe): announcing that they are members of these ethnic groups makes them so.

Is there a corresponding trend, for non-white people to identify as white, or try to deceitfully pass themselves off as such? And I'm not talking about implicitly (e.g. Indian women using skin-lightening creams), but explicitly the way white progressives do.

It’s called ‘passing’ and it’s so unremarkable as to be cliche.

You've been rather confrontational with me recently, and I don't know why.

I'm aware that "passing" was a thing in the past. My question was whether it's still a thing, in light of a significant body of evidence suggesting that "reverse passing" is on the rise i.e. that in many fields and social circles, a mixed-race person has more to gain by knowingly playing up their non-white ancestry (or inventing it entirely, in the event of a person lacking any such ancestry). I think it was perfectly clear from my comment that this was the information I was looking for.

Among Hispanics, yes, although it’s not the sort of thing that is newsworthy because it’s done by not-newsworthy people.

Being white is perhaps a detriment to upper-unremarkable people trying to become remarkable, but Jose six pack understands that going by ‘Joe’ and pretending he learned Spanish in school is of great help to a career repairing cars or whatever. I won’t comment on the accuracy of that belief, but there is a saying ‘Black is beautiful and tan is grand, but White is the color of the big boss man’, and for light-ish Hispanics that makes the course of events obvious. Grow facial hair that pure Indios can’t, speak English whenever possible, stay out of the sun, anglicize your name.

But is there a prominent recent example of it?

Prominent? Not really, no, it’s a dog bites man story.

Bobby Fischer emphatically denied his own jewishness towards the end of his life, but he didn't get any financial benefit from doing that, it was done as a performative political gesture.

By "denied his own Jewishness" do you mean "renounced his faith" or "denied having any Ashkenazi ethnic background"?

The second, he emphatically denied something that was objectively true. There's several letters to publications he wrote where he "corrected their mistake", and he's on camera doing it in an interview at some point.

Mindy Kaling’s brother (Tamil) famously passed himself off as black when applying for college iirc.

I initially thought this might not actually be a lie in the strict sense, because Kaling’s family may have lived in East Africa prior to immigrating (like the family of Rishi Sunak, for instance). This would make Kaling and her brother “African-American” in the same sense as Elon Musk.

But nope, turns out the Chokalingams came straight to America from India, no politically-expedient stopover in Africa involved. Which makes Mindy’s brother an out-and-out liar.

Wolbachia is a bacterial parasite that affects, among other things, malaria carrying mosquitos. Despite it being a quintessential parasite, because it feeds on something that hurts us it is on net a benefit to humanity. Same with Mindy's brother who fed on the woke spoils system. I hope he drained it as much as possible for himself.

Back in the 19th century, it wasn't uncommon for a black person, or especially a mixed person, to try to pass as white.

There's also the classic Eddie Murphy SNL skit where he goes about a day of his life in whiteface (White Like Me), though viewers seeing it as absurdist might be taken as a sign that it wasn't common.

Yes, I'm familiar with the phenomenon you're describing, and the fact that at least some white people in certain industries think their careers would stand to benefit by attempting to pass themselves off as non-white people shows how far the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. More recently, Philip Roth wrote a novel about a black man whose career in academia can be at least partly attributed to successfully passing himself off as Jewish, which was widely (and apparently erroneously) believed to have been inspired by Anatole Broyard, a mixed-race writer and critic who died in 1990 and who passed himself off as white.

I'm curious if the phenomenon still exists in the "non-white -> white" direction, as opposed to its modern incarnation of "white -> non-white". Given the online circles in which I move, I hear about just about every example of a white academic or activist who gets exposed for pretending to be non-white, or a white teenager who "identifies as" trans-Korean or similar. It's possible that the reverse case may be equally common, but I just haven't heard of it because I'm in an echo chamber.

Skin-lightening products are a gigantic industry. Just who do you think is buying them(well, yes, women, but what kind of woman)?

The politician Geert Wilders in the Netherlands is actually 1/4-Indonesian but dyes his hair blonde and wears blue contacts in order to be a credible anti-immigration candidate. (I don't really think rounding up 75% to 100% is that big a deal but the aesthetics of looking dutch are probably pretty important to him.)

He doesn't wear blue contacts. You can see that he has blue eyes in images of him as a pubescent youngster.

Fascinating, I always thought his skin tone was noticeably darker than the typical Dutchman.

"Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man" by James Weldon Johnson is a great book-length example of that.

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