site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   36180 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.

At the same time, it's apparently totally acceptable to run around this forum screeching DEMOCRATS ARE GROOMERS

You... do know this is primarily a reactionary forum and is consequentially going to have a right-wing skew (thus be a bit more concerned about traditional purity, per Haidt's Moral Foundations) to it no matter the actual leaning of the participants, right?

The problem is that "anyone interested in teaching sex stuff to the under[age] demographic implies they're [at least not dis-interested in or concerned with] potentially increasing the number of under-[age]s having sex in the world" is... well, it's more trivial than it really should be to find edge cases where this is actually true.

But it's trivial to argue the opposite from a purity standpoint- average age of virginity loss is at all-time highs and Gen Z/A are on average more sexually conservative than their Gen X/Y teachers. So the progressive argument that more sex ed is having a cooling effect on under[age] sex is actually valid, but you actually have to make that argument in the first place, and it's confounded by the rise in transgenderism (though you could just point out the increased emphasis on it in schools lags its rise).

Of course, that's still not going to be enough to justify the abuse of State power to abduct children from families, but in fairness nobody tried to justify that one.

  • -23

primarily a reactionary forum

You must be new here.

You... do know this is primarily a reactionary forum and is consequentially going to have a right-wing skew (thus be a bit more concerned about traditional purity, per Haidt's Moral Foundations) to it no matter the actual leaning of the participants, right?

I don't know who you are or how long you've been around, but it's pretty frustrating to hear you say that. Mere months ago we were being told (by - wonder of wonders! - Naraburns) that actually, the forum is politically balanced, and liberals were too thin-skinned and used to dominating online spaces:

I have audited moderation, AAQCs, and (using your data!) the demographics of the sub itself. I have never found any evidence of an anti-left bias. I have found copious evidence of the absence of a left-wing bias, which many left-wingers appear to interpret as an anti-left bias. Part of the problem, I assume, is that it is much easier to write polemics than it is to write constructively; even when writing constructively, we tend to respond to criticism, which is itself a sort of polemic. And part of the problem is that, as one of the few rational platforms that permit right-wing viewpoints at all, we do seem to have something like an "overrepresentation" of the right here, though it is perhaps inescapably difficult to say for certain...After all, I'd conducted multiple audits in response to users whining about anti-left biases, and simply never found any evidence.

But I happened to have a moment to check your work, and all I can say is--what? Unless the vote tallies have shifted quite a lot since you did this work, I find your tally for November 15 to be nigh incomprehensible, to the point where I am inclined to simply disregard the others without further audit.

But based on the criteria you provided, I once again find no particular anti-left bias in this space--though I do worry that claiming there is a bias, in a comment that (due to the high effort nature of gathering the data) few users are likely to challenge on the particulars, is one way to encourage anti-left bias, and discourage leftists from posting here. At minimum, you seem to think that many comments I coded as "other" are in fact comments that would discourage leftists from posting here. That seems like you indirectly claiming that leftists are simply too thin-skinned to abide even the slightest disagreement. I do not think that is true, but if or when it is true, then I think it is the foundation of the sub, rather than the users or their posts, to which such people actually object.

You're the second person I've seen this week saying something to this effect. But we've gone from a mod calling us 'users whining about anti-left biases' to 'of course this place leans right you fucking idiots' so fast I'm getting whiplash.

For the record, I think Naraburns is a good mod.

I think it's fair to say there's no anti-left mod bias, but it's certainly a very right-coded space in terms of the culture war.

I think part of what makes it seem more leftist in polls than it actually is is the fact that there are quite a few older former leftists who believe in things like socialised healthcare, a cradle-to-grave welfare state, etc, etc, but have cultural views formed in the 90s or 00s and consequently oppose modern identitarianism very, very strongly.

That's roughly where I identify, but the thing about the Motte is that it's a cultural war space, not a policy discussion space. I suspect on policy issues the membership skews a fair bit more left. We definitely have some very strong libertarians who are all for as few taxes and as few government services as possible, but I think there's a reasonably large population of 'I like my healthcare free, just like my speech' Mottizens who would argue for single-payer healthcare, higher welfare payments, etc, etc. Of course, the reality I might be fired from my job for refusing to call someone 'ze' (thankfully not in our office as of yet, but we've had a helpful instructional email from corporate HQ over in the US about neopronouns from a middle-aged white HR lady) is also something I'm very much against, so if we only ever talk about the latter I find myself in the same place as reactionaries in opposing it.

If this was a forum about how to deal with monopolies or on the virtues of re-zoning low-density areas in the inner city I think I'd find myself very strongly on the other side of the debate much more often. It's just that we don't really talk about those things here.

but it's certainly a very right-coded space in terms of the culture war.

Well, the original poster is the one who inherently gets to set the framing of the argument. So, if the post is reacting to some event, it's more likely this framing is closer to the [assumed median of opinions considered right-wing]. And it's easy to see why- people just don't post "well, they're trying to take your kids away for XYZ" yet frame the argument as something they agree with when they actually don't, revealed by how they subsequently reply.

And it's certainly not impossible to argue against framing, but it's more work (and you get boo-lighted anyway); so even if we assume that "people who put in the work to justify their arguments" is equally distributed between [people more likely to post opinions considered left-wing] and [people more likely to post opinions considered right-wing] it's going to be [opinions considered left-wing] on the back foot of the debate most of the time.

Perhaps "high-decouplers exist on both sides of the aisle; the ones on the left are just more likely to lurk" is what the poll tends to be getting at more? (Remember, the general rule for Internet communities is that 90% lurk, 9% comment, 1% post; something that held true for the old subreddit, too.) People who understand that certain [left] framings probably describe real things, but are used in exactly the opposite ways they claim they are (for example, "intersectionality describes something real, but women were never, in aggregate, the oppressed gender") is not actually something that defines one as right-wing (unless it's being described by the left-wing).

I think part of what makes it seem more leftist in polls than it actually is is the fact that there are quite a few older former leftists who believe in things like socialised healthcare, a cradle-to-grave welfare state, etc, etc, but have cultural views formed in the 90s or 00s and consequently oppose modern identitarianism very, very strongly.

So they're not right-wing, but they are conservatives. Which is... well, kind of what the median conservative looks like ("liberals driving the speed limit" and all that), but it also betrays the fact that neither of these words are actually clear descriptors of what they're typically used to describe and almost by definition come with value judgment baggage. Avoiding that is generally why people hang out here, though, since if you're going to post what is functionally "leftists, reeeeee" you at least have to put in the effort; this isn't /r/CultureWarRoundup.

I think you're missing a distinction.

The mods are generally balanced. I could even be convinced they're slightly biased in favor of people on the left.

The commenters here definitely skew anti-mainstream and anti-woke, which is very close to being synonymous with skewing rightwards in the post-2016 era. This has gotten more and more blatant over the last several years, imo.

You're the second person I've seen this week saying something to this effect. But we've gone from a mod calling us 'users whining about anti-left biases' to 'of course this place leans right you fucking idiots' so fast I'm getting whiplash.

Yeah, but that doesn't really matter because those people are wrong. The idea that this is a reactionary right wing forum is laughable, not something you should be troubled by. I've been around for years and years at this point, and people complaining "the forum is so right wing" is as old as the forum itself. It's always been wrong, and it continues to be wrong. The opposite complaint, that the forum is biased to the left, is just as old and just as wrong.

people complaining "the forum is so right wing" is as old as the forum itself

absolutely true, but being offsite from reddit often has the effect of concentrating the unburnt, and in this case the former witches would mostly be right wingers. Beyond that, i wonder if the people who claim this as a right wing space are just kinda defensive or possessive of spaces that don't shut down exploration or promotion of their memes. They would probably find more resistance if radlibs had to come here to talk about how bombing pipelines is totally cool but they can still generally get away with that on reddit (though this might not always stay true, AFAICT the report function is turning out to be a weapon with some universal applicability, and Reddit seems to be less and less happy with even "righteous" violent rhetoric).

You... do know this is primarily a reactionary forum and is consequentially going to have a right-wing skew

You were the Chosen One, /r/TheMotte! It was said that you would destroy the screaming tribal shit-flinging, not join in! etc. etc.

This place is way to the right of me in some directions I find really weird, but I'm still here because it's supposed to be a place for the grown-ups in the room, where you don't get targeted for a difference of opinion. If it's going to just be another reactionary forum with a slightly higher average IQ for a while, what's the point?

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