site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   15621 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
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Given that you don't think the National Holocaust Museum should exist at all

Woah there, that's an extremely uncharitable assertion. SS might be perfectly supportive of the museum existing, just with some of the numbers changed. Or the dates.

Woah there, that's an extremely uncharitable assertion. SS might be perfectly supportive of the museum existing, just with some of the numbers changed. Or the dates.

Given that SS's history has made his position on the Holocaust and Jews very clear, I don't think it's uncharitable to conclude that he does not think the National Holocaust Museum should exist. That seems to be the thrust, in fact, of the post I responded to. But if this is not true, I'll accept correction and would be fascinated to hear what form he believes the National Holocaust Museum should take.

The USHMM should exist if it presents an accurate historical account, to the best of its abilities, of what transpired, and it should not exist if it does not do so due to malice and gross negligence. It should exist if it is trying to preserve and present history, it should not exist for the primary purpose of psychologically influencing the American public for the benefit of international Jewry. Do you think that's a fair position?

But the purpose of my post was not to argue whether the museum should or should not exist. My point was that the massive level of funding available to that USHMM from both public and private sources, which stands head and shoulders above all other museums, indicates a level of prioritization in the subject matter we consider sacred. To call this "secular" is just absurd. Being a "Holocaust Denier" is an infinitely more grave charge than being called an infidel or atheist. That is a Religious phenomenon.

"Religion" is not just what you hear when you go to church. It's transmitted through the symbols we display on public land, the museums we build and provide the most funding for, and the esoteric messaging that is embedded in mass media. Symbols matter, this is deeply understood by Jews themselves who have worked very hard to achieve the prevailing status quo. Meanwhile, Christians are not even operating in the same arena and it's not clear if they are able to do so.

The USHMM should exist if it presents an accurate historical account, to the best of its abilities, of what transpired, and it should not exist if it does not do so due to malice and gross negligence. It should exist if it is trying to preserve and present history, it should not exist for the primary purpose of psychologically influencing the American public for the benefit of international Jewry. Do you think that's a fair position?

Sure. Of course that's kind of like saying "The Air and Space Museum should not exist if its purpose is to perpetuate the hoax of NASA's faked moon landings." And "the Museum of Natural History should not exist if its purpose is for atheists to psychologically influence the American public to turn them away from God and the reality of Biblical creation."

But the purpose of my post was not to argue whether the museum should or should not exist. My point was that the massive level of funding available to that USHMM from both public and private sources, which stands head and shoulders above all other museums,

I gave a list of funding for other museums. The USHMM is arguably above average, but hardly "head and shoulders" above all other museums. Complain about them getting too much money if you wish, but they're still just one of many museums that receives federal funding and their level of funding is not so much greater as you claim.

To call this "secular" is just absurd. Being a "Holocaust Denier" is an infinitely more grave charge than being called an infidel or atheist. That is a Religious phenomenon.

You believing this does not make it true. There are also deniers of other atrocities, such as the Armenian genocides and the Rape of Nanking. Is it a "religious" phenomenon to believe those events happen, or only if you happen to disagree about whether they did?

Religion" is not just what you hear when you go to church. Its transmitted through the symbols we display on public land, the museums we build and provide the most funding for, and the esoteric messaging that is embedded in mass media. Symbols matter, this is deeply understood by Jews themselves who have worked very hard to achieve the prevailing status quo.

Again, accepting your premises, yes, the Elders of Zion have created a religion and indoctrinated us all in its arcane symbols and articles of faith.

But that requires accepting your premises. If one doesn't accept your premises, your argument is nonsense.

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