site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   31274 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
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How would the test misclassify you? Your role in this community seems completely consistent with a wokeness score of 0%.

Someone who infers "anti-woke" somehow means republican or right-wing in any way is wrong, but that's not a problem with the test.

How would the test misclassify you? Your role in this community seems completely consistent with a wokeness score of 0%.

I don't know about that - I am sometimes willing to steelman woke positions, and I am what passes as a liberal hereabouts. Which is the problem with that test: my answers and those of bonafide right-wing white nationalist would be indistinguishable. While the truly woke and the typical sneerclubber might consider that accurate, I think not.

I'm not sure a white nationalist and a classical liberal would be indistinguishable on 6.

I am not exactly sure if that is the case. Question: We don’t need to talk more about the color of people’s skin.

  1. Yes, I believe in MLK colorblindness and we should talk less.

  2. No, we should talk more specifically about phasing out things like affirmative action

  3. Yes, the current level of talk including affirmative action and some woke stuff feels to me just about right

  4. No, we should talk more about racialist policies such as Kendi's Department of Anti-racism

  5. No, we should talk about white replacement and unsustainable immigration

For instance 1. and 2. to me seems stemming from similar sentiment but it gets you different questionnaire answer. And of course 5. and 6. are polar opposites on "wokeness scale" although the have the same questionnaire answer. The questionnaire is weird in this way.

Yes, the 4-1-5 horseshoe was exactly my point. 2 feels like a failure of test taking ability in the context of an anti-woke test, phasing out AA is more naturally a "talk less about race than currently" option. 3 is possible, though it is a fairly noncommittal stance and the original test was on a 4-point scale.

On a Venn diagram of wokeness right-wingers would be fully enclosed in a non-woke circle, with left-wingers straddling between woke and non-woke.

That's why any wokeness test wholly focused on wokeness can't distinguish between them.

Which is the problem with that test: my answers and those of bonafide right-wing white nationalist would be indistinguishable.

I don't think the test is meant to distinguish between those, though. It's not a generic political-position test, it's just a test for wokeness. As someone who is also a liberal myself (I don't know if I "pass" for one hereabouts, but I identify as one), I would classify myself as 100% anti-woke and I would expect an accurate test for wokeness to classify me as such, in a way that's indistinguishable from, say, a MAGA Republican. Because regardless of our differences, a MAGA Republican and I both are completely anti-woke.

Must be semantics then. I don't use the word "woke" to mean "generic socially left wing" but I guess if other people do then some peoples' test scores will make them look bad.

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