site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   15669 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 Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

To counterbalance my frothy rant earlier this week about wokeism in the novel Ancillary Justice, I thought I would do a quick write up on another SF/F novel - namely The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison. This is another novel in the speculative fiction genre that has won accolades, is pretty 'woke' in its plot and worldbuilding, and is written by a pretty left leaning woman as far as I can tell.

However, I found it exquisite! To explain a bit without spoiling the plot entirely, it revolves around a half-goblin half-elf man who has been abused and out of favor his whole life, but suddenly becomes emperor of the refined, wealthy, and judgmental empire of elves who his late father ruled. It is a classic tale of the oppressed being thrust into a position of power, and having to navigate racism, prejudice, etc. That's the main theme of the book. For instance in this scene the new emperor, Maia, confronts his abusive guardian, Setheris:

"Thank you, cousin," Maia said, knowing full well that Setheris offered him only the form of respect, that even now, as at Maia's wave he took the other chair, he was incensed with Maia's arrogance, waiting for the correct moment to reassert his control.

Thou wilt not, Maia thought. If I achieve nothing else in all my reign, thou wilt not rule me.

On top of this, there are all sorts of messages about women being useful for more than marriages, masters taking care of their servants, etc etc. All standard far-left, liberal talking points.

I'm wondering if the main difference between my frustration with Ancillary Justice and The Goblin Emperor is just the use of pronouns? I didn't think I had that much of an issue with pronouns/trans ideology separated from the rest of the woke memeplex, but the more I think about it the more it seems that people switching the pronouns they use and forcing others to use their preferred pronouns even if obviously incorrect is the main issue in my mind. Which doesn't seem to make much logical sense - but maybe it's just a disgust reaction.

Anyway, as someone who has identified as a liberal for most of my life, actually hardcore leftist, anti-authoritarian socialist, etc, I'm curious how many other folks are in the same boat. Essentially on board with the project of the left, until the last 5-10 years when trans ideology and pronouns took over the movement. Perhaps there are others who have realized that this is one specific issue they just can't accept for the greater good of the leftist cause.

Anyway, as someone who has identified as a liberal for most of my life, actually hardcore leftist, anti-authoritarian socialist, etc, I'm curious how many other folks are in the same boat. Essentially on board with the project of the left, until the last 5-10 years when trans ideology and pronouns took over the movement. Perhaps there are others who have realized that this is one specific issue they just can't accept for the greater good of the leftist cause.

The more I get expose to the ideas of people who call themselves leftists and rightists the less I think those terms mean anything at all. What does it even mean to be on the left to you? The explanation of it that sticks in my mind was something Freddie deBoer said that I just spent 30 minutes failing to find where he declares his intention to always side with the weak against the the strong no matter the situation. Which sounds good on a protest sign until you think about it for two seconds.

I'm not much of a fan of the right. I'm not religious, I'm open to change and new experiences. My meat space friend group is a rainbow coalition of gays and minorities. I would like a better and more equal world and if the past is a different country you don't have to go far back before I get a little hesitant to allow immigration for fear of incompatible values. But nearly every idea I hear come out of the left is just so pathetically flawed and unconsidered. Is a better of class of proposed changes so much to ask for? Am I really on the right because I don't support the 14th iteration of a failed rent control proposal or special interests looting the public purse? The bulk of my allies in defending free speech, of convenience or not, are now Conservatives?

It's enough to make a man turn to the bottle.

How does it go? Repression causes (selects for) smart ideas. Smart ideas lead to social dominance. Social dominance allows stupid takes. Stupid takes (eventually) invite repression.

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