site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   31256 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How do wokes/social constructionists/etc reconcile their views with the actual state of scientific knowledge or even basic logic? It seems clear to me that if one accepts genetics and evolutionary principles, it necessarily implies that 1: humans have a nature that is determined in large part by our genetics and 2: humans and human societies undergo selection on both an individual and group level. We've known for a long time now that intelligence, mental health and a whole bunch of other traits relating to ability and personality are very heavily influenced by genetics, and it's perfectly logical this could lead to differences in outcomes on an individual as well as population level.

However this gets dismissed away with a lot of spurious reasoning (which is usually presented with a huge amount of nose-thumbing and "Scientists say..." type wording in order to scare the reader into not questioning it). As an example, the whole "races can't be easily delineated, there's no gene specific to any race, and there's more variation within races than between them" argument seems to be a poor attempt at deflection and simply doesn't hold up as a method of dismissing population-level differences. Just because races can't be easily delineated does not mean that race is a "social construct" - race might not be discrete, but it is a real physical entity with roots in biology and just because there's no clear dividing lines which can be drawn doesn't exclude the fact that if you do decide to draw these lines it's entirely possible you'd find differences which exist. None of what's said is inconsistent with the idea of innate variations in intelligence and ability that roughly correlate with observable phenotypic traits. All it takes is for the frequency of specific alleles which code for these traits to be unequally distributed, and you'll find aggregate differences. But the way it's presented exists to mislead people into thinking that the continuum-like nature of genetic differences means that these differences or even the concept of race itself as a biological entity is not something that one should even entertain.

There is also another level to this denial of evolutionary principles that extends far beyond genetics, however. Many of these people also seem to think that social norms themselves are arbitrary vagaries of specific historical circumstances, rather than being adaptive practices which were selected for through the process of survival-of-the-fittest. This view fails to account for many commonalities among civilisations, one of the clear ones being religion (one of the favourite woke whipping horses out there). Not only is religion completely ubiquitous in pre-modern society, you can generally see a shift from animist-type religions in tribal societies to the more developed and organised forms of religion mostly predominant in societies that achieve "civilisation" status. This clearly seems to suggest that religious dictates don't simply arbitrarily drop out of the sky - it indicates that some form of selection was occurring and that societies that adopted certain religions had an advantage. Even more than this, these "successful" religions that are common in civilisations share quite a few similarities in their dictates - selflessness, self-discipline, abstinence, etc.

I'm no religious nut - I'm quite atheist, but religion is a social technology that exists so that large-scale societies can remain cohesive and retain a shared moral foundation, and I would call it a good thing overall (and yes, my perspective often pisses off both religious people and atheists). However this is never properly engaged with by the orthodoxy outside of "yeah people facing hardship make up bullshit to make sense of the world, it's got no validity or use outside of that". Such stock explanations that handwave away traditional social norms (at least, those which contradict the woke moral system and outlook) as being functionless at best and damaging at worst are painfully common, despite many of these social norms being absolutely everywhere up until recently.

Among the supposedly educated any discussion of these topics through these non-approved lenses tends to invoke accusations of "social Darwinism" with the implication that applying any kind of evolutionary logic to humans and human societies is invalid because it could be used to justify Bad Things. This is all consequentialist reasoning which has no bearing on the truth of the claim itself, and lumping in all kinds of belief systems under the same category is a very clear composition fallacy which is clearly done to tar every single idea contained within its bounds with the same brush.

More than this, despite these people being very intent on portraying themselves as secular, scientific people, their viewpoints clearly are in conflict with any kind of scientific understanding and come off to me as being borderline superstitious. In order to strongly believe that insights from genetics and evolution can't be applied to human behaviour and that humans do not come programmed with specific predispositions that depend on what you've inherited, you have to believe in metaphysical, dualist ideas of the mind which are essentially detached from anything physical that could be affected by genetics. Once you adopt a view of the human mind as a physical entity the shape of which is determined by the specifications of genetic instructions, it opens up that whole Darwinian can of worms and everything that stems from it, and many wokes simply do not want to acknowledge the possibility that it could have any amount of validity. Unless they're able to maintain an absolutely unreal amount of cognitive dissonance, I'm unsure how their ideas can be anything but superstitious.

It's even worse when it comes to their idea of social norms as something that just drop out of the sky and persist and propagate over the long term regardless of the adaptiveness of these norms, since there is clearly nothing controversial about the idea that societies compete against each other, and this will tend to select for those norms that promote functioning (which is why you find common threads). But you still come across this type of knee-jerk denial nevertheless. Regardless of how well-read they may be, their reasoning remains fundamentally sloppy, and I'm unsure how they manage to square this circle.

How do wokes

You should, sincerely, find a better place to ask. Nobody here self-identifies as woke, preciously few people are even adjacent, and people who hate them, despise them, are numerous as they get. You'd get a better and more honest answer just-about anywhere that isn't here and, additionally, I think you kind've know it. That this is not a place for the woke to be is no grand secret.

A place full of wokies wouldn't be any better either though, because wokies mostly don't believe in critical reflection on their ideology.

This isn't a simple "boo outgroup!" sneer either, just a fact. Wokeism is the ideology of "Listen and believe!", of objectivity, rationality, logic, etc. being periodically accused of existing merely as servants of their great oppressors and excuses for their various *isms, and so on. Going "Akshually, what about genetics?" to wokies and expecting a productive response is like waltzing into a Soviet-era Politburo and trying to explain basic economic theory to them, or describing the Rule of Three to a Christian inquisitor and why it means that witchcraft is actually just as moral as Christianity.

Of course this kind of answers OP's question. "Scrupulously adheres to and agrees with empirically-observable reality, including the latest advances in genetics, etc." is not a basic tenet of woke ideology. "Anti-racism is always good and racism is always bad" is. You might as well ask how Christians can really believe that some guy walked on water given all that we know about physics, density, buoyancy, etc. It won't make a difference.

If you have faith, and if there's a sufficient distance between your personal circumstances and the negative consequences of that faith (and sometimes even if there's not if you're particularly adept at maniacal, masochistic self-delusion), then you can believe whatever you want. If you really think about it, in the vast majority of cases and not even just about woke stuff, reality (or at least acknowledging it) is optional, at least temporarily. But "temporarily" can last a heck of a long time in human terms, as the old saying about markets staying irrational longer than you can stay solvent highlights. Similarly, wokies can deny reality longer than your sanity can stay solvent.

For what it's worth, I do agree that posting what he did in a woke place would do him no good either. In general, posts such as these are going to generate more heat than light: you'll get people accusing you of badthink and people with an axe to grind regarding woke ideology much more than you will find people interested in coming up with a good answer. OP is better off finding someone to ask personally, without fifty hyper-online people staring at him and waiting to judge his virtue. The social dynamics to figure out good-faith believes plain and simply aren't there in the sort of wide-open online forum you can easily post such questions.

I get your point, and I agree with it, but I think a lot of users here lack anyone to ask personally, and that's partly why they are here. I can see the booo outgroup angle of the op, but I viewed it primarily as exasperation - it's the op saying "hey I'm not stupid, but this doesn't make sense to me, you guys are smart, do you understand it?"

And that's one of the points of this place I thought, it's a place you can ask questions you can't ask elsewhere. This place becomes kinda worthless if there are questions that you shouldn't ask here, but also can't ask anywhere else, doesn't it? (not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't see a good solution to this problem.)

When people want to learn about rightist totalitarianism they read Eco Umberto and Arendt Hannah, not Gentile Giovanni and Rosenberg Alfred.

Thus if for other ideologies, external perception is favoured over internal one, why shouldn't it be for social justice?

Back in high school, we absolutely read the things fascists wrote to learn about that ideology. When I went on to study history in university, we did much the same. None of this happened all that long ago, and it seems to have worked out pretty well, so I don't know why I'd even agree with your base assumptions here.

Also - why are you flipping first names and surnames? What is that all about?

I apologize for typical minding then. It is just that my local public library has books regarding fascism by Arendt and Eco, but not by Hitler, Rosenberg or Gentile.

Also - why are you flipping first names and surnames? What is that all about?

previous poster is Hungarian? ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_names#Hungarian_surnames

I came here specifically for a principled anti-woke perspective. I do already engage in quite a bit of conversation with wokes, which is actually what kick-started this thread of mine. I'm currently in a server full of them, and sometimes the topic of politics comes up, and I often try to offer up some casual prompting and disagreement and see if they can clarify their positions to me a bit more. I am still no closer to thinking that their worldview is consistent with rational thought, and I think all I've actually managed to do is slowly drive myself crazy and make them slightly uncomfortable with me (despite me having offered up my most anodyne opinions).

If I were to come to a conclusion based on my interactions with woke leftists, I'd say a very good portion of their worldview is empty consequentialism, with any contradictions smoothed out by a mental barrier that goes something like "well it looks good and can be used to justify 'good' social policy, and our detractors who can muster up the energy to contradict us so fervently are more likely than not motivated by some underlying prejudice". Outside of the most vapid mockery of people and things they don't like, few actual arguments are put forward, and the ones that are put forward when I speak to them are not particularly strong and clearly fly in the face of any kind of rational realistic worldview. Many of the people who believe it possess a worldview that has everything to do with optics and nothing to do with reason or logic.

So yeah, I've talked to them quite a bit, and now I want ideas from here before I solidify this conclusion even further.

I'm curious, actually. Have you talked to anyone in particular, in private, outside the 'public' sphere that is such a server? Or are the conclusions you draw the sorts of conclusions you made from seeing them engage among themselves without further prodding?

Woke ideology is the space busybodies, the permanently aggrieved, social strivers, and grifters flock to; it appeals to these sorts of people very much. If you want to bully people for believing unpopular things, if you want to scold your neighbours for falling out of line, if you want to get power and status for little real effort, joining up with team woke is really really helpful. This isn't even a criticism of the ideology: humanity has always had people like these, we will always have them, and they will always be nuisant antisocial bastards dragging the rest of us down.

The problem, then, is figuring out who genuinely has reasoned themselves into a woke space, and who's there for the community instead. What proportion there is I cannot say, but there will absolutely be people with good arguments to make for whatever we might call woke. And insofar those people are around, asking them to reveal their power level in SocJus spaces and asking them to risk their own standing before people they know well just to entertain a heretic just isn't the way to go. Your curiosity about their ideology isn't worth all that much, and they rightly aren't going to give you a genuine answer out in the open like that.

Finally, as a parting thought..

I came here specifically for a principled anti-woke perspective.

Here as elsewhere, you'll mostly find people whose guiding anti-woke principle is that they really hate funko pops. It is what it is.

Have you talked to anyone in particular, in private, outside the 'public' sphere that is such a server?

Yes, I have had many one-on-one verbal conversations with the people there in voice-chat. The most common person I do this with is the user who seems the most reasoned, the most willing to listen to points, and who will at least make an attempt to steelman them. I remain very unconvinced, but regardless I have made an attempt to engage in many different social contexts.

Of course you have to be careful with how you say anything, since if they view you as an unprincipled member of their out-group any debate from there on is not going to be very productive.

I disagree. To use an analogy, the best people to ask about Christianity and the bible may be atheists, especially "converted" ones that spent years studying all there is in order to come to certain conclusion. Asking the question in your cookie cutter christian forum may often lead to incredulity, suspicion and even hostility of people who feel that their faith is threatened. I often see the same in woke spaces. Discussions often quickly devolve into some version of sneerclub and are ultimately useless.

As much as I find these questions a little boring now (likely because I’ve spent too much time reading themotte), this is a good place to ask because posters are genuinely interested in understanding the nature of wokism. Even though no one subscribes to the ideology, you might still find informative or interesting replies.

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