site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   44988 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 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.

105
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The nation is a house divided and it stands by inertia alone.

Sad, but definitely true. Unless we can unite somehow, I can't help but think that the current divisions in our society will literally destroy the country. I don't really know how to fix it, but it's pretty depressing to contemplate.

how are these divisions worse than those during the civil war? or reconstruction? or the gilded age? prohibition? this? Active, violent conflict between unions and bosses?

Divisions have been here for ages, and the current divisions seem much less bad than the past ones. All the trump and dems still do their jobs, and the economy still advances rapidly. it's not going anywhere!

In terms of racial and sectarian and ideological composition, the US was a much more homogenous nation back then, even during the active years of the Weather Underground. In the 19th century, even more so. Plus, enforced Christian monogamy and the creed of civic nationalism / American exceptionalism were still the norm, which had a huge stabilizing effect on society.

I don't think they're worse. I do think they're just about as bad. We have had people literally shooting at each other over ideological divisions within the past couple of years. I genuinely think it wouldn't take that much to push the country into open civil war at this point, and that scares the heck out of me.

The divisions are not worse than those during the Civil War, but that is only because the Civil War is as bad as it can get. Because then you have a civil war. Being better than the absolute worst possible does not mean you're good.

just for the sake of being a pedantic fuck, i find it hard to believe that the civil war is as bad as political division could get. Shermans march was pretty hardcore but it stopped when it could have done some victory laps just killin routed confederates.

IMO a lot of folks view divisive politics very pessimistically. I'd compare that to telling a married couple having an argument that they're destined for divorce: maybe, but not always. To get on my soapbox, unity takes effort: it's work, and it often feels unfair, but it can be worth it.

I do not believe there's a sincere desire in the masses to reconcile, nor do I believe there's a practical way to do so. The tribal divisions may once have been small and manageable; but, like a cancerous tumor, they have swollen to terrible splendor, and insinuated themselves into every facet of life great and small. We are not one people who disagree on some things; we are, at a minimum, two completely antagonistic populations forced to occupy the same space.

There cannot be one nation ruled by two tribes. We will divorce or we will come to blows, eventually. One will become two or two will become one.

Counterpoint: No, we're a mostly aligned blob of people who agree on most issues, and the impression that we're headed for a civil war is an artifact of being extremely online, where insane people of all stripes are disproportionately present and energetic.

We don't share the same cultural tastes. We don't share the same views of foreign or domestic policy. We don't share the same ideas on the sanctity of life, the appropriate way to handle crime, and the fundamental role of the government. We don't enjoy the same hobbies, we don't visit the same places, we don't watch the same news.

Sure, maybe everyone likes the latest Marvel movie, and agrees on vague platitudes like "good things are good" and "bad things are bad". Cut through the surface level and actually dig into the substance of issues, though, and I see nothing but irreconcilable division.

Make a falsifiable prediction with a date attached to it.

Before 2030 we will have a statistically significant increase in violent crime with political motives across the country. I'll even be nice and say we don't have to count the BLM riots, as if we did my prediction would already be realized.

I'll even be nice and say we don't have to count the BLM riots, as if we did my prediction would already be realized.

This is where you give it away that you're just predicting that our status quo (of periodic political events accompanied by politically motivated crime) will continue. You said "There cannot be one nation ruled by two tribes. We will divorce or we will come to blows, eventually. One will become two or two will become one." You think a couple more political riots in the next decade is all that it takes to substantiate this apocalyptic vision? Come on, either tone down the rhetoric or make a prediction that justifies it.

This sounds like your problem, not mine. I made my prediction; you can accept it or not, but I'm not going to humor your protestations.

I do not believe there's a sincere desire in the masses to reconcile, nor do I believe there's a practical way to do so.

I agree and think this is the real mystery in today's culture war - how far will escalation continue?

In a way, civil war is incredibly unlikely for now because of the relative comfort and safety we have. However, I worry that this comfort allows the divisions plaguing us to keep simmering away and implicitly raises the stakes of any eventual conflict or divorce. We defer the conflict resolution at our peril. The evaporative cooling of a small scale civil war or something analogous like secession a decade ago, could have actually allowed a rapprochement.

I don't expect us to have a second Civil War. Organizing into armies and marching is a surefire way to have the power of the state come down on your head. What I am expecting within the decade is escalation to targeted terrorism, Troubles-style. The US does not have competing armies anymore, but it can easily have competing terrorists.

The US does not have competing armies anymore, but it can easily have competing terrorists.

No, it cannot. The US has the state capacity to stop nearly all domestic terrorism, and it does... when it comes from the right. Except when the counterterrorism orgs create it themselves, of course.

There is no state capacity that can stop a dedicated individual terrorist. If you try to form up into groups and make complicated schemes, yes, of course, the FBI will infiltrate and lead you to getting yourself imprisoned -- but ultimately, no force on earth can stop a man from getting a gun and opening fire, driving his car into someone, whatever.

That sort of thing just disappears into the vast background of crime and crazies. It's not useful for anything.

I firmly believe history, even recent history, indicates otherwise. Violence works better than anything else, so long as it's intelligently targeted.

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