site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32063 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 New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Was the civil rights movement successful? In many areas we only seem to have moved from de jure to de facto segregation.

Black family formation seems to have suffered particularly from other culture war revolutions. Arguably the result of too little rather than too much oppression.

Yes, but. The nonviolent civil rights movement existed very much in tandem with the specter of immensely-destructive race riots, or uprisings by militant black nationalists. The proverbial velvet glove over an iron fist. Not to say they didn't have legit grievances, but pure Ghandi-an satyagraha it was not.[Edit: thanks to /u/Gdanning for the correction]

You have your timeline wrong. There were no such riots during the period during which the proponents of nonviolence were ascendant in the Civil Rights movement; they all took place after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, and the first big one, in Watts, took place after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed. The Long Hot Summer was in 1967, as was the replacement of SNCC leader John Brown with Stokely Carmichael, and the subsequent rise of the Black Power Movement.

I meant the principle, not the practice, but you are correct as to history.

This reminds me of a quality contribution post, regarding the "it's okay to be white posters", which says "The far-right statement isn't: "It's okay to be white" , it is you tearing it down."

link: https://www.vault.themotte.org/post/the_shortest_quality_contribution

Part of why trolling sometimes works as an ideological tool is because people who react disproportionately to innocuous things look ridiculous and usually end up hurting their own side more than they help.

I miss the past.

Can you support "public perception reflected that" a little more? A lot of the people in that photo look to be on the asshole's side, or did they restrain him right after this was taken? Also, you and I have the benefit of hindsight, so we know what the right side of history is. Maybe much of the public was actually on his side?

A lot of things that I think are "obviously disruptive" like lighting buildings on fire in the summer of 2020, I am pretty sure a lot of my friends would call, "important for social change." "No woman ever changed the world by being obedient" and those kinds of remarks. Only time can tell what the right side of history will be right?

"Right side of history" is a halting-complete problem!

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