site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31778 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Okay. And progressives will use their cultural influence to shame you for not being one of them. You want to swing a dangerous weapon around. It will predictably be turned on you and me.

Everyone already does this. A pacifist in a culture war is a fool.

I don't think that encouraging and normalizing shaming is to our advantage. Encouraging more and worse bad behavior is not a wise action.

Public shaming is a necessary part of a functioning society

I disagree and if true then our near future will be mean progressives publicly shaming wrong thinkers like you and I.

Everyone already does this. A pacifist in a culture war is a fool.

An even bigger fool is the member of an unpopular minority advocating for popular mobs to harm the unpopular.

Pacifism is one thing. Trying to arm your enemies when you know you aren't going to win this war is another.

That seems like conflict theory done only halfway.

I'd say all weapons will be used by all sides that are capable of using them, with no respect for unilateral non-escalation. Progressives will shame conservatives regardless of conservatives refraining from attempting the same, because progressives are currently in a position to quote that piece of the Melian Dialogue: "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.".

Observing the proprieties while your enemies are biting and gouging is only a winning move if there is some powerful third party who values non-escalation.

Observing the proprieties while your enemies are biting and gouging is only a winning move if there is some powerful third party who values non-escalation.

You seem to be making the mistake that what's important is to win or lose. But as the cliche goes, what matters is how you play the game. I would much rather lose while upholding good moral behavior, than win by sacrificing morals.

It seems like a noble sentiment on the surface, but it does not seem that great when you are hiding in the bushes while the enemies behead your brothers and rape your sisters and aunts. This high-minded morality to me is just a sign of privilege, it is easy to pretend to be "moral" if one is not present with tough choices

Sure, I too prefer to play that way. But you can only lose for so long until you're not even in the game anymore.

Now I don't mean to imply that anyone, conservative or otherwise, necessarily needs to go around shaming people. But I do mean that progressives seem to have no compunctions about it and they're currently winning the culture war so decisively that they increasingly get to dictate the conditions for social participation, and for conservatives to worry about whether shaming might be used against them if they were to attempt to employ it against progressives is, in my opinion, missing several points.

What good moral behaviour is being maintained by avoiding the use of shaming tactics? I would be surprised if there were many people who were against the use of shaming absolutely, in all contexts.

"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"

Nietzsche asked:

Is it better to out-monster the monster or to be quietly devoured?

If your morals lead you to be devoured by the monster, for no benefit to anyone except monsters, then what good are those morals?

For my good. It's better to be a good person, even at great material costs, than to engage in vice to get ahead.

This is too glib. What is Vice in this context? Is it a vice to commit an evil that you believe is necessary to achieve a just outcome? It wouldn't be a vice to lie to the Nazis about the jews in your attic, right? Is it a vice to maintain a MAD nuclear deterrent? Is it a vice to use the enemy's own tools to defeat them - even if you would abhor them in any other case?

I can see that from a Christian perspective, with a belief in an eternal reward for choosing non-resistant martyrdom against enemies that wish you harm.

But in ancient Roman the virtues included Virtus, Auctoritas, Dignitas... "Gracefully losing" while your community falls apart would be seen as a vice from this perspective.

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