site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   33057 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 Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The monument to Catherine was demolished because Catherine the Great is associated with Russia. One should not look for some philosophical or historical meaning here. It's just a symbolic gesture against a pile of copper.

Again, she is the founder of Odessa. This is yet another farce.

A lot, as otherwise they wouldn't have their city.

This is such a goofy argument that's pretty clearly a result of motivated reasoning. Does ordering a city be founded at a particular location give a person some unassailable claim to have their statue there for all eternity? If you honestly think it does, you need to do a lot more work to back up that assertion. Statues aren't just some note in a history book. They're meant to glorify a particular historical figure. Given Cathy's association with Russia, and Russia's current actions against Ukraine, it ought to be pretty understandable why the people of Odessa don't want to glorify the leader of a nation that's currently terror bombing them and engaging in war crimes left and right.

Does ordering a city be founded at a particular location give a person some unassailable claim to have their statue there for all eternity?

Yes. Absolutely. And of course.

Frankly I find the opposite opinion very strange. Honoring creators and founders is probably one of the most ancient and universal traditions of humanity.

War propaganda is extremely petty in comparison.

Founders of cities are honored with a statue if they're seen as honorable, not just because they happened to found a city.

If Hitler happened to found a city somewhere in occupied Russia during WW2, do you think Hitler is entitled to have a statue of himself in that city forever?

Unironically, I do.

Hell I think he already deserves to be honored for his few but important good deeds or generally as an important historical figure even though he did great evil. And that's coming from someone who despises all forms of totalitarianism. I see no more reason to destroy his statues as I do Lenin's. Who is as great and terrible a man in many ways. Nazi iconoclasm seems more a feature of boomer mythical truth than any reasoned view of history if you ask me.

Kayne might have said it extremely poorly but I think he was right on that. It is good (and most importantly Christian) to be able to use forgiveness to separate good and evil in the legacy of all men.

But this is all besides the point, Catherine the Great wasn't Hitler.

For a more relevant example, was it not silly to rename Tsaritsyn to Stalingrad?

Well, I applaud you for being ideologically consistent in your views at least. That's not a terrible lens to have when looking at historical figures, although popular perception of history isn't going to be nearly as nuanced, obviously. Most people interpret "statue" as "noble individual", and I mostly agree. I think the nuanced view can be reserved for the history textbooks for the people who really care.

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