site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   35058 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 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.

24
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Get “party members” into what, in this case? The contestants? The judges? I don’t even see a proposed remedy, just people who want to complain.

This also implies a level of conspiracy among the plaintiffs that I find unrealistic. I think you’re too credulous of anything that could potentially support an anti-white agenda.

EDIT: yes, I know that DEI consultants are a thing. I hadn’t seen examples of requests for such political spoils, so I figured the backlash was performative. I have since found quotes specifically calling for Mexican judges and consultants, so...objection retracted.

Sometimes you ask these questions and I can't tell if you're taking the piss or just suddenly got amnesia about the last 2-6 years.

I know what a DEI consultant is. Not trolling either. All the examples i was seeing were either cringing at the humor or mad about the food, with no requests for DEI compliance officers.

A little more googling found an actual example, though, so I’ll concede.

The claim "only Mexicans are allowed to make Mexican food" means that anyone who wants to make Mexican food commercially has to use Mexicans and can't use whites. Across all domains where cultural appropriation can be alleged, the replacement of whites with non-whites (who owe their position to leftist politics) is essentially adding party members.

conspiracy among the plaintiffs that I find unrealistic

Those who buy the cultural appropriation thing at face value would also make the claim that white people have no culture to justify the exception to the rule. So at best we have plaintiffs conspiring against whites for purely cultural/ethnic reasons, at worst they are politically motivated. I think it's fair to say that the specific rules of USA progressive leftism are always self-reinforcing i.e. they have the effect of replacing non-progressives with progressives inside organizations.

Get “party members” into what, in this case? The contestants? The judges?

The production team and management. Obviously the Great British Bakeoff will need to hire one or a dozen DEI consultants to help ensure their show is inclusive and represents the diverse world we live in today, and such terrible racism and white supremacy doesn't seep into the show again.

Have there been calls for that? The criticisms quoted elsewhere are more performative outrage than requests for concessions.

Edit: yeah, surprisingly close to word for word. Sigh.

Get “party members” into what, in this case?

Consultant role. Not everyone involved in the show works in-front of the camera.

anti-white

Not anti-white, this the UK with plenty of "whites" which consider themselves outside of the legacy majority ethnicity (Poles, for instance), anti-British or anti-English.

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