site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32473 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 13, 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 Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I understand the allure of seeing a watershed moment in this decision. We may well be at the point where the trans acceptance movement, at least its more rabid factions, begins to crumble. It won't even be very surprising: I've always felt that it's a tangent in the general scheme of the culture war, and there's too much autism and honest-to-God male aggression in those conquests perpetrated by trans warriors to truly align with the all-dissolving feminine logos of Cybele. But: whatever happens next, the NYT is probably not acting because of those object level disagreements.

This is not so much evidence in favor of wokeism having peaked as it's evidence against the theory of Cathedral.

The latter predicts that the media is essentially directed by its middle management, not its owners; an intelligentsia network that emergently develops and changes consensus. The standard theory of power (our banned friend would say, Powerology) predicts that the NYT is a family business of Sulzbergers and a vessel for their long-term agenda; and, like any serious dynasty or a crime family, they will not suffer to have their turf usurped by their own minions. It is well known that they do not appreciate grassroots initiatives on their ship:

For starters, it’s important to accept that the New York Times has always — or at least for many decades — been a far more editor-driven, and self-conscious, publication than many of those with which it competes. Historically, the Los Angeles Times, where I worked twice, for instance, was a reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper. Most editors wanted to know, every day, before the first morning meeting: “What are you hearing? What have you got?”

It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper’s movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called “the narrative.” We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.

Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: “My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?”

The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper’s daily Page One meeting: “We set the agenda for the country in that room.”

(I'm becoming like Sailer with those repetitive references, aren't I? But they are worth reiterating).

Rowling is barely a factor of consideration. What those journalists demanded, in essence, was for the NYT leadership to acquiesce to a character assassination of a high-profile figure they personally dislike but who is not on the kill list. Letting them run with it would be fomenting the impression of them being in control, which has a way of eventually becoming reality. If the impression that a bunch of radicals can get the NYT to publish whatever they want spreads in the relatively narrow world of journalism, they may overwhelm it, to the point the newspaper would have trouble finding high-skilled employees who'll tolerate following orders. Better nip it in the bud. I believe this has happened a few times already, when the NYT upper brass noticed some journalist getting ahead of him/herself.

A good theory, but then, wasn't that whole "Send In The Troops" drama more of a bottom-up revolt against an editor? Sure, not the same thing as being against the head staff or owners, but why let that one bout of revolutionary energy through?

Eh, I would disagree with that "three logoi" formulation; Cybele is not about logos at all. She's either ethos (the appeal to the authority, as Great Nature, the Mother) or pathos (the suffering of such as Attis). More pathos, I would say, as it is mystical and ecstatic ritual in the vein of Dionysius.

Can you summarize that whole link? It's a lot to digest and I already don't think I have the needed context for it. I'm vaguely aware of the "Apollo/Dionysus" dichotomy (or, at least, I saw a Ratsphere Tumblr post once saying that, actually, Edge is Dionysian and Whimsy is Apollonian--or was it the other way around?), but that's about it.

This is not so much evidence in favor of wokeism having peaked as it's evidence against the theory of Cathedral.

It's evidence that for-profit media occasionally acts in its financial interests, which should not be that surprising.

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