site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   15631 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 19, 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.

16
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I was very sympathetic to the Sad Puppies because a lot of the modern Hugo stuff really was "how the hell is this SF/Fantasy?" and was being patted on the head simply because it was written by a woman/POC/LGBT author.

See, the thing about the Puppies is I agreed with them about a lot of the recent winners, but not that therefore "Low-brow pulp action should get Hugos." Like, I'm sorry, but a Hugo was supposed to represent something worthy of becoming a genre classic. I actually enjoy Larry Correia's books, but his writing is strictly derivative action-adventure with no small amount of wish fulfillment. Vox Day is not actually a very good writer (though admittedly his nominations were pure trolling), and Brad Torgerson tries to write in the old classic SF style but he doesn't have the chops for it.

As much as I appreciated the puppies' campaign for its entertainment value, I don't think their tastes in "literature" are any better than the woke cabal's, it just runs in a different lowbrow direction.

See, the thing about the Puppies is I agreed with them about a lot of the recent winners, but not that therefore "Low-brow pulp action should get Hugos."

True, but looking back at 2016 Sad and Rabid Puppies Hugo nominees, ironically one of them is "Ancillary Mercy" by Ann Leckie (low-brow pulp action?). Some of their nominees, I agree, are low-brow pulp and are there mainly as friends/supporters/'up yours' to the opposition, but not all:

Sad Puppies list:

Best Novel

Somewhither – John C Wright

Honor At Stake – Declan Finn

The Cinder Spires: The Aeronaut’s Windlass – Jim Butcher

Uprooted – Naomi Novik

A Long Time Until Now – Michael Z Williamson

Seveneves – Neal Stephenson

Son of the Black Sword – Larry Correia

Strands of Sorrow – John Ringo

Nethereal – Brian Niemeier

Ancillary Mercy – Ann Leckie

Rabid Puppies/Vox Day:

Seveneves: A Novel, Neal Stephenson

Golden Son, Pierce Brown

Somewhither: A Tale of the Unwithering Realm, John C. Wright

The Cinder Spires: The Aeronaut’s Windlass, Jim Butcher

Agent of the Imperium, Marc Miller

And seemingly in 2015 the Puppies nominated and voted for The Three-Body Problem but this was bad because it was ideological right-wingism and not because they thought "yeah, this is good hard SF":

GT: Many fans believe that even if The Three-Body Problem had benefited from the “puppies,” it still was deserving of a Hugo Award. Do you agree?

Liu: Deserving is one thing, getting the award is another thing. Many votes went to The Three-Body Problem after Marko Kloos withdrew. That’s something I didn’t want to see. But The Three-Body Problem still would have had a chance to win by a slim margin of a few votes [without the “puppies”].

After the awards, some critics used this – the support right-wing organizations like the “puppies” gave The Three-Body Problem – as an excuse to criticize the win. That frustrated me. The “puppies” severely harmed the credibility of the Hugo Awards. I feel both happy and “unfortunate” to have won this year.

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