site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   36939 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 24, 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.

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Being "ruled", by your enemies or otherwise is a state of mind.

That's what Winston Smith thought. He was wrong.

That's what Winston Smith thought. He was wrong.

Tell me that you completely missed the point of 1984 without using those words.

And yet to the people of only two generations ago this would not have seemed all-important, because they were not attempting to alter history. They were governed by private loyalties which they did not question. What mattered were individual relationships, and a completely helpless gesture, an embrace, a tear, a word spoken to a dying man, could have value in itself. The proles, it suddenly occurred to him, had remained in this condition. They were not loyal to a party or a country or an idea, they were loyal to one another. For the first time in his life he did not despise the proles or think of them merely as an inert force which would one day spring to life and regenerate the world. The proles had stayed human. They had not become hardened inside. They had held on to the primitive emotions which he himself had to re-learn by conscious effort.

Internal vs external loci of control, where does yours lie?

As long as we're not disembodied beings of pure thought -- and perhaps even if we are -- we have an external locus of control. That was the lesson of Miniluv and Room 101. Maybe they can put rats on your face. Maybe they'll turn your family against you, as with the story of vaccine-fanaticism elsethread. Maybe they'll take your children away if you don't submit. Maybe they'll just shun you and require everyone else to shun you too. Maybe you think you can remain free within your own mind while outwardly submitting, but I suggest you can't -- once they've got you by the balls, your heart and mind will follow.

As long as we're not disembodied beings of pure thought -- and perhaps even if we are -- we have an external locus of control.

Yoda: ...and that is why you fail.

Winston Smith is weak, he craves comfort and approval, and he lacks those "primitive emotions" and "helpless gestures", that would otherwise ground him. He betrays Julia, not because of some some law of nature but because that is who Winston is. He was always a creature of the party. He's not a character you're supposed to emulate, or aspire to. He's a character you're supposed to feel sorry for. He's an answer to the question of "how does this happen?"

A man who can not control himself will inevitably be controlled by another.

Have you never had anything for which you were prepared to lose everything?

Winston is weak, and he thought he was strong. Julia, too, was weak. But everyone is; everyone can be broken. Room 101 has an answer for everyone.

Have you never had anything for which you were prepared to lose everything?

How would I ever know, without actually losing everything? Winston thought he did, until he cried out "Do it to Julia!"

everyone can be broken. Room 101 has an answer for everyone.

You tell yourself that to salve your own ego, much as Winston did, but does it?

I get the impression that you completely missed and/or glossed over a good chunk of the book.

I think O'Brien says this pretty explicitly. Of course O'Brien is a Party torturer, and thus perhaps not entirely objective. But there's no indication in the book that he's at all wrong. 1984 is a pretty heavy black pill.

Orwell's whole message was that there's always something that will break you and sweep all your bluster and stoicism away. What's in the room is different for every person, but it will always be there. And the total state will find it regardless of cost, because by its nature it has to dominate and destroy the individual.

If you want to die free with your ideals unbroken, you'd better have saved a hand grenade for when the time comes.

You and I must have read very different versions of 1984 then. Winston's' resolve breaks because it was brittle, shallow, and never firmly held to begin with. Orwell's message is not that the party and O'Brien are right, its don't be like Winston. Don't fall into that trap. Don't let go of your humanity.

The man was a communist: humans being powerless toys of historical forces is his entire thing. It was a consistent message in his books from Coming Up For Air to Keep The Aspidistra Flying. None of his men are supermen, despite being stronger willed and more thoughtful than they give themselves credit for, and none of them win against the forces they struggle against because for a communist no individual can. Only the revolution he was growing more disillusioned with after every betrayal.

Yes, he started as a communist. Didn't end as one. Your mistake in conflating cautionary tales with prescriptive ones.

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