site banner
ZorbaTHut  3yr ago (text post)   47680 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.

106
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Kendi and the rest of the CRT do want to redefine it that way, the same way that saying "I am not a fascist" is not at all the same thing as saying "I am anti-fascist", since "anti-fascist" has been given a specific definition. If you said "I am anti-fascist", it is plausible that someone would interpret that as meaning you are antifa, a completely different thing.

For Kendi, in his books and this TED talk, there are only two states; racist or anti-racist. "Not a racist" does not exist, it is merely "racist in denial of their racism". So if Tolkien is described as "not a racist", that merely means "he was in denial of his own racism", and the people accusing him of racism are correct.

From the book:

A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people. There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups.

From the talk:

In the most simplest way, a not racist is a racist who is in denial, and an anti-racist is someone who is willing to admit the times in which they are being racist, and how is willing to recognize the inequities and the racial problems of our society, and who is willing to challenge those racial inequities by challenging policy. And so I’m saying this because literally slaveholders, slave traders, imagined that their ideas in our terms were not racist. They would say things like, “Black people are the cursed descendants of Ham, and they’re cursed forever into enslavement.” This isn’t, “I’m not racist.” This is, “God’s law.” They would say things, like, you know, “Based on science, based on ethnology, based on natural history, black people by nature are predisposed to slavery and servility. This is nature’s law. I’m not racist. I’m actually doing what nature said I’m supposed to be doing.” And so this construct of being not racist and denying one’s racism goes all the way back to the origins of this country.

And no, simply saying "it's just this one bunch of activists" is no longer enough. You can't say "I don't care what this lot claim, I'm happy to use terms like 'not a racist', and ordinary people will know what I mean". Ordinary people are getting hit over the head with this stuff every day until they accept "not a racist is just as bad; you must be anti-racist".

If you believe Kendi is wrong, and there are more than two states, what would you call them?

I’m using “anti-racist” for direct opposition to racism, even if it doesn’t subscribe to postmodern structural theory. Getting upset when people use the reasonable version of the term instead of the academic one seems counterproductive.

I do believe Kendi is wrong,

I do not believe there are more than two states, or even two states as such; there is racism/being a racist and there is not being a racist. In a sane world, we would not need any term for "not a racist", since it would be sufficient that if we can say correctly "Peter is a racist" then it can be assumed "Paul is not, because nobody has said he is", but right now we are living in insanity rules.

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