site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31782 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
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And yet the those same leftists control nearly every institution with influence or power in the US today. That's not what failure looks like.

Seems like you want principles but also some pragmatism.

Utopians often have principles but it is in those non flexible principles that leads them to creating hell on earth.

That's funny you mention that quote, I just watched Oblivion yesterday with Tom Cruise and it was a plot point of the film. What are the chances. It's funny how two people can read the same writing and both think it supports their perspectives even though they are opposed.

But I don't think that quote lends support to the "be quietly devoured" side of Nietzsche's dilemma. Do you really think you are facing fearful odds for the ashes of your fathers with a milquetoast non-resistance to an opposition that is tearing down the temples of your gods? You really think "Democrats are the real racists" is you standing against fearful odds when it's the safest (non-)opposition that progressives allow you to have? You will be able to live peacefully with that opposition, that's true, because "Democrats are the real racists" is ultimately paying homage to their gods. You are still adopting their moral compass.

Horatius describing "Standing against fearful odds" obviously honors the bold and the brave opposition- in the context of ancestor worship for that matter, and not the personal salvation of one's own soul. The ancient Romans made mountains of skulls in honor of the ashes of their fathers and the temples of their gods. And so did any great civilization.

Caring more about the salvation of one's own soul than fighting and winning against a monstrous opposition would be total lunacy to Horatius.

I also object to the implication I am a utopian. I am certainly not. I believe in the deep, inherent conflict of the political and don't believe there's one neat trick that solves it and saves everyone's soul. That's why I care about winning, and think it's a vice for people who should know better, but they stay within the walled garden of their feckless opposition while they make the conscious decision to gracefully lose.

It's not brave at all and it's certainly not the posture that Horatius is honoring in this writing.

I don't have nothing to add other that I loved the passion of your comment: it's making me introspect on how I want to live my life.

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