site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 2025

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.

5
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"Who cares" is not the response I was looking for. This problem extends a lot farther than Trace, obviously. Do you think China fosters the type of environment that makes this type of forum possible? For how niche it is, for how many types of people post here, for how many ideas can be represented here, this website itself and everyone in it is a product of liberalism. Do you care what happens to it? Do you care what happens to everyone who uses it? Do you care what happens to yourself?

LOL, oh no, this forum. And it's many diverse views. So diverse the mods keep contriving new and creative reasons to ban me for mine.

This forum has more or less outlived it's usefulness, and effectively radicalized me against it's own principles. All I see anymore are liars using arguments as soldiers to trick the other side into not believing their own lying eyes.

  • -11

This lack of empathy is not what I think the ideal person should have, nor is the victim complex. I suppose this is one example of someone whose values I do not share.

I have empathy for my family over empathy for the gay furry on twitter. It's that twitter meme about the empathy graphs come to life...

The Twitter meme does not imply what people think it implies. It shows the extent of a person's moral circle of concern, and does not mean that liberals care more about distant strangers than their own family or neighbors.

But let's not let actually reading the study get in the way of easy gotchas or reasons to yell at the outgroup, eh?

It's hilarious to me that people who are usually screaming that all social science is fake and gay and data collected by surveys is meaningless suddenly think its SCIENCE! when it allegedly shows something bad about leftists.

I found that survey meaningless because the question, as presented, would leave me very confused about how to answer. Like, "my inner group"? My social circle? In a very abstract sense I do care about the entire human race, so maybe I'd choose one of the outer circles. But in concrete, day to day concerns, where I place my priorities (and my money)? Inner circle for sure. So would I be in the "Good conservative family values" blob or the "Sociopathic liberal who loves random Africans more than my own children" blob?

The study is useless except as a source for a cheap meme.

It's hilarious to me that people who are usually screaming that all social science is fake and gay and data collected by surveys is meaningless suddenly think its SCIENCE! when it allegedly shows something bad about leftists.

Why? It's human nature, and goes in all directions. For example all the lefty social science enjoyers are gangsta, until you bring up IQ genetics (note: not even HBD).

Well,. here on the Motte at least I wish more people would be intellectually honest.

(I am frequently disappointed.)

In retrospect I think it was pretty pretentious to think we, or all the rat-adjacent communities, represented any form of departure from human biases. Conversations here became a lot less frustrating once I accepted us for what we are - normal people with slightly above average IQ.

More comments