site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32795 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A follow up to the Roald Dahl censorship story from last week for those who haven't been following UK news. Apparently the publisher as (partially) backed down and agreed to keep the original books in print, along with the modernised versions. Apparently criticism from the Prime Minister, the queen, global authordom and the French was enough to swing it.

For now. But they've betrayed their intentions. They own the IP, this is what they want, and they'll bide their time until they get another chance, or they think nobody is watching. It's what other organizations have done.

How do you decide this is a case of what they always intended instead of drumming up controversy to get attention?

If they were acting out of moral concern, why back down in the face of opposition? I suppose there's a chance that they simply hadn't considered the consequences of announcing they would do this, and I don't want to deny that people can sometimes just collectively fail to use their brains on accident, but that seems even more unlikely.

Moreover, they're book publishers. Are we to think they haven't had debates about this kind of thing for ages? I doubt this is the case either.

So either they ignored a debate that would have a very high chance of playing out in their business, or they tried capitalizing on controversy to sell books. When was the last time Roald Dahl even got in the news?

If they were acting out of moral concern, why back down in the face of opposition?

Any action has material and political limits that it might run into. Even if you think something is right, the pushback might be too much for you and you'll opt to push for the same goal later, or through more discrete channels. They talk about this stuff openly, you know.

I agree that there are people who subvert the spirit of democracy to pass laws and rules that benefit them. But I think the situation is different here from the example you cite.

For starters, I'm not clear on what the limits actually are in this case. Presumably, Puffin and Penguin are only willing to go so far in pushing this new line of books. But the response to them seems mostly at outrage over changing the books. Have you found any demands to boycott or threaten legal action against them? I haven't. It's largely just empty words, and I think they'd be monitoring the response with an intense focus to see just this.

Secondly, they ultimately backed down and said they'd publish both versions. This makes for an excellent marketing ploy - plenty of people will probably go and buy a copy to have an "untainted version".

I can't fully discount the idea that Puffin will quietly just remove the classic version eventually. But if the botched delivery of this update is anything to go by, people will more widely have the original anyways, and finding illegal copies online isn't that hard even now. So if the goal is having people read the more moral version, then I think Puffin is planning uncharacteristically long into the future, for a company anyways.

But the response to them seems mostly at outrage over changing the books. Have you found any demands to boycott or threaten legal action against them? I haven't.

So what?

A recent theme in my comments is the "democratic model" of our society, and how I think it's bunk, and I am once again forced to go on my little rant. From the youngest years we are taught that not only do we live in a democracy, but that somehow our entire society follows the principle of "the more people hold an opinion, the more important that opinion is" with the implicit assumption that no other factors are relevant. The idea that publishers are afraid of boycotts is laughable, show me the last successful consumer boycott. Even when they just produce shit no one wants to watch because it's crap, sans any boycott, half the time they proceed to shit on their audience for "not getting it" rather than adjusting to the majority opinion so they can start making money.

In my mind it's pretty clear that the democratic model is false. I think it's completely fine if you think it's true, and want to argue for it, but you actually have to do it, rather than assume it's true by default, and expect everyone else to make arguments within that framework.

Secondly, they ultimately backed down and said they'd publish both versions. This makes for an excellent marketing ploy - plenty of people will probably go and buy a copy to have an "untainted version".

The problem here is that you can come up with an explanation like no matter what happens. If they back down, it's a marketing ploy. If they don't back down, like in the case of Blood Heir from a few years ago, or the withdrawal of the Winnetou books in Germany last summer, you can just say "well, I guess the books really were that controversial, and the author / publisher wanted to avoid backlash".

It's an ok theory, but a theory is not evidence for itself.

So if the goal is having people read the more moral version, then I think Puffin is planning uncharacteristically long into the future, for a company anyways.

The goal is to have people of a particular ideology have control over media. They're not acting as a company, the people working for the company are acting as members of a religion they want to spread far and wide.

The idea that publishers are afraid of boycotts is laughable, show me the last successful consumer boycott. Even when they just produce shit no one wants to watch because it's crap, sans any boycott, half the time they proceed to shit on their audience for "not getting it" rather than adjusting to the majority opinion so they can start making money.

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but if they're not even afraid of boycotts, then what are the limits here? You argued that their actions had material limits, but you now seem to be arguing that they don't care if you boycott their materials or not. If so, they would have greater reason to not back down if they actually cared, no?

The problem here is that you can come up with an explanation like no matter what happens. If they back down, it's a marketing ploy. If they don't back down, like in the case of Blood Heir from a few years ago, or the withdrawal of the Winnetou books in Germany last summer, you can just say "well, I guess the books really were that controversial, and the author / publisher wanted to avoid backlash".

If Puffin had stuck to their guns, I would have no way of calling it a cash grab and I acknowledge that. It would have, in my opinion, been them sacrificing money to make a moral statement.

More comments

So if the goal is having people read the more moral version, then I think Puffin is planning uncharacteristically long into the future, for a company anyways.

People in charge are hired managers responsible to other hired managers, all the way up to BlackRock/Vanguard. The goal they care about is their personal future, and are wary of anything that might endanger it, like, for example, being suspected of racism and hate.

"The book we just printed is full of racism! There is massive outcry and backlash against the company! Who authorized it for print?"

"At your last job, why were you publishing racist books? Are your racist, or willing accomplice of racists? Why should we hire hater like you?"

"The book we just printed is full of racism! There is massive outcry and backlash against the company! Who authorized it for print?"

Sure, this might happen. Except Puffin has said the following:

“As part of our process to review the language used we worked in partnership with Inclusive Minds, a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion and accessibility in children’s literature. The current review began in 2020, before Dahl was acquired by Netflix. It was led by Puffin and Roald Dahl Story Company together.”

This seems to suggest an internal motivation, not an external one. Of course, I think it wouldn't be hard for someone to plan on generating a controversy this way regardless, but I'll admit I can't decisively prove it.

They believe in what they are doing for moral reasons but back down when pressured enough. Happens all the time. My wife’s public university offered course credit to protest Kavanaugh but backtracked when it got media attention. That clearly wasn’t a publicity stunt.

This idea that nobody actually believes in this and it’s all a plan to drum up controversy annoys me. It’s reminiscent of “it’s just a few kids on college campuses.” Or suggestions that cancellations are just cover for severing ties with people for business reasons. Why is it so hard to accept that there are lots of true believers out there?

Al Franken was not a strategic move but true believers going crazy. A&E canceling all their most popular shows in 2020 was not a tactical business decision it was a moral panic. There are lots of believers out there in legit positions of authority.

They believe in what they are doing for moral reasons but back down when pressured enough. Happens all the time. My wife’s public university offered course credit to protest Kavanaugh but backtracked when it got media attention. That clearly wasn’t a publicity stunt.

Your example has, how to put it, an indelicacy to it that makes me see it as someone genuinely trying to do a moral thing. The Dahl books controversy seems almost perfectly tailored for maximum spread over something that they would very likely have thought through perfectly.

This idea that nobody actually believes in this and it’s all a plan to drum up controversy annoys me. It’s reminiscent of “it’s just a few kids on college campuses.” Or suggestions that cancellations are just cover for severing ties with people for business reasons. Why is it so hard to accept that there are lots of true believers out there?

I don't have a problem with the idea that people out there want to modernize the language of older books by cutting out that which is unappealing to them. But that's not the same as saying that the people at Puffin necessarily want to do that in this case. That requires more proof.

I think the fact that they did it is pretty good evidence that they wanted to do it.

We know they wanted to do it, the question is why they want to. If they were being totally honest, was their conscious and major driving reason that they found the language objectionable? Or, as I suspect, were they doing this in a way to generate attention by surfing the line?

More comments

Not moral concern, moralist concern. It is performative and the reaction was way more negative than they expected - even the Queen gave them shit! I think you are right about it being a publicity stunt, but I strongly - like farm strongly - doubt that whoever was in charge of this move was counting on or even considered a negative reaction. They expected it to go like it has a dozen times before - anyone who didn't like it would be called a wrongthinker and hounded into silence, possibly with threats to their livelihood.

It is performative and the reaction was way more negative than they expected - even the Queen gave them shit!

I don't see how you say it is performative if they, as you argue, believe what they are doing something moral. It's not performative for me to do X if I think it is a moral thing to do, even if I don't necessarily think about it fully when I do it.

Sure it is. Goodwife Hetty sees young Henry and Constance canoodling by the river, even though Constance is betrothed to Matthew, the ostler's son. She tells her priest about it out of moral concern, but she tells everyone else about it performatively - the moral concern is just an excuse to raise her own standing in the community.

She tells her priest about it out of moral concern, but she tells everyone else about it performatively - the moral concern is just an excuse to raise her own standing in the community.

You're assuming these are different. Why does telling everyone else raise her social standing? Because she is doing an act the community sees to be pro-social, blowing the whistle on people breaking social norms.

Raising her social standing is the INCENTIVE to get her to behave morally in the first place. That's not performative, it's the core of our social programming.

That's possible. It's also possible Hetty is zealous is enforcing the morality of her community, and informing everyone she's seen a bad thing happen would be her way of ensuring everyone knew of Henry and Constance's immoral actions.

Or a publisher wanting to create a reason why everyone needs to buy a new copy of a book that's been in print forever.

I remember reading Dahl books as a kid and it seemed like they were always used, so creating a reason for parents to buy books new might be a benefit. And TBF I don't think that woke publishing employees have a great model for their typical customers.

Companies don’t do that in my experience. You want controversy? Just get the CEO to say nigger or something. Controversy is the easiest thing to generate in the world and companies mostly seem terrified of it. Also I have never worked at a company where they said “Let’s do something that will piss off all our customers to generate controversy”

I disagree. Scott talked about this in his post on the IDW - you have to straddle the line carefully, not just go into being seen as outright wrong or immoral. This book change seems nearly perfectly tailored to generate free publicity for Roald Dahl books - you have plenty of people who will take either side of the most obvious and common arguments: don't like don't read, rewriting historical books for modern audiences, making people more moral, etc.

You have to pick a side on an incendiary issue that directly relates to the thing at hand. A CEO saying "nigger" or something similar would make the controversy about the CEO, not the company, and people might very well decide they won't support that business at all even if the product is good.

That didn't go so well for Papa John.

Yes, that's his point.

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