site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   30435 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 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.

13
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

MAGAs and wokes suffer from the same malady

Disagree. One prefers hostile foreigners to their own, both want to make it illegal for the other to be in power. Not symmetric.

Radfems screeching about the patriarchy

Here's where it's weird. I wrote in another comment that women making excuses for rapey immigrants is in heavy contrast to the decidedly less rapey white men they've given no quarter at university for the last several decades. What gives besides friend and enemy distinction?

The simplest answer is that they are wrong about relative prevalence of rape.

Or that you are. From NIJ

About 85 to 90 percent of sexual assaults reported by college women are perpetrated by someone known to the victim; about half occur on a date.

If a college woman doesn't know or interact with any illegal immigrants, then she is exceedingly unlikely to be raped by one. Even taking your assumption that those men are more likely to rape, the base rate of interaction is so low as to make it practically irrelevant. [Rainn tells us](https://www.rainn.org/statistics/campus-sexual-violence#:~:text=Male%20college%2Daged%20students%20(18,of%20rape%20or%20sexual%20assault.&text=Female%20college%2Daged%20students%20(18,of%20rape%20or%20sexual%20assault.) that college women are less likely to be raped than similarly aged women who aren't in college. Those women who aren't in college, in turn, are probably exceedingly unlikely to be raped by a college student.

So this is closer to a class issue than a race or a gender issue, even if we accept your framing.

Sure, that’s possible too- I wasn’t trying to address the issue of who’s doing the raping. Just pointing out that the possible solutions to ‘feminists are really attached to importing rapists’ include ‘they believe what they say they believe, including incorrect statistics about the prevalence of rape’, and that this is a more likely explanation than ‘they all want to get raped’.

Here's where it's weird. I wrote in another comment that women making excuses for rapey immigrants is in heavy contrast to the decidedly less rapey white men they've given no quarter at university for the last several decades. What gives besides friend and enemy distinction?

I'm not sure if you're being insincere or if you just have a very broken theory of mind for your outgroup. It's not complicated; I'll say it again. They actually believe what they say they believe. They do not believe immigrants are "rapey"; they believe immigrants are oppressed marginalized refugees. They actually believe white men at their university are privileged and rapey. It's not some secret code you have to crack to figure out why they treat one differently than the other: they told you. Your interpretation ("You know immigrants are more likely to rape you than your white classmates, right?") might or might not be correct, but that is not their interpretation. They aren't just pretending not to understand and hiding their motives: they believe different things.

Then the question is why do they choose to believe things that aren't true and are trivially easy to disprove.

No, the question, or rather the offer is: then disprove them. "My enemies are wrong and believe untruths" is what everyone believes and carries no information.

Agreed, but my OP focused on a subgroup:

there is only one source of intense passion: single, college-educated women

Married women from the same demographic, especially with kids, believe these things to a much lesser degree. Do you think that being single makes a woman more likely to buy into this stuff, and why might that be?

From election polling, and - 'married men: 39% D, married women: 42% D, nonmarried men: 45% D, nonmarried women: 68% D'. (I'd argue a lot of that is just women being more influenced by social ideas, and 'progressive ideas' are the background and are winning, so younger women adopt those)

Your explanation seems wrong though

I'm not married to my explanation, but "women more easily convinced" doesn't seem right. Why aren't they convinced by strong borders? Pretty good arguments for that.

I mean more influenced by ideas on the basis of other people holding them, as opposed to 'trying really hard to figure it out oneself'.

Married women from the same demographic, especially with kids, believe these things to a much lesser degree. Do you think that being single makes a woman more likely to buy into this stuff, and why might that be?

You're asking why college students are more radical than older, married people with children, and yet somehow making it a question about women.

To be fair, the polling (sibling comment) shows a much stronger difference in party voted for than married vs unmarried women (26% absolute) than married vs unmarried men (6% absolute), although op's explanation still seems wrong

Near group/far group

What is the analogous far group for red?

Apparently women.

You seem quite confident that women feel the exact same fear or distaste as you, but channel it into completely different policy. This might have something to do with taking gender studies on 4chan.

Consider the the possibility that women frame the issue differently than you. They are not afraid or threatened, and think of sympathetic migrants and unjust sentencing rather than drug trafficking or recidivism.

Red uses women against blue?

No, in @Westerly’s explanation, the difference between near and far groups is whether one actually has an accurate model of them.

My B, did not interpret that correctly

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