site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   35867 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.

Brianna's activism isn't mostly for 'ethnic spoils for my tribe', it's mostly for 'pls stop killing us racists :(((('.

Also, white people aren’t allowed to be considered downtrodden

There's clearly a racial component, but people like brianna are more than happy to complain about police violence, poverty, or the opioid epidemic among poor whites, and try to help them with policy.

I think there's a thing here where, in order to 'fight the left' while still maintaining progressive moral values, people rhetorically twist the left's actions into what the left calls evil - so "white genocide", "black ethnic tribalism", "the left wants us dead", etc, even though those are not accurate. Considering the idea of 'should carjackers be killed', outside the context of 'if they are black' or 'if they are 13', is more useful - and brings up - is every life 'of equal value'? Where does the 'value' of human life come from?

even though those are not accurate.

Hold on, is inaccuracy grounds for dismissal? In that case why hasn't "'pls stop killing us racists :((((" been roundly dismissed?

Grounds in what sense? There isn't some lib in this conversation whose hypocrisy is being exposed by differing standards here. Why should I lazily believe dumb ideas just because people I dislike believe dumb ideas?

Are the people you dislike libs? And by that do you mean left wingers?

My political views are, in an absolute sense, far-right - I just care a lot about detail, so I can find disagreement with most points, including ones that point right.

Inaccuracy is grounds for dismissal for my views, even though it isn't for the left-wingers, and no amount of me disliking them (in a political sense) should change that.

If this is true then you're the kind of far-right winger that sets Hlynka off on rants about how you're essentially a Democrat. Like, what kind of non-leftwinger doesn't know that the response to BLM was ALM, not some vague opposition symmetrical to the one towards "It's ok to be white"?

I'm not sure precisely what you mean in the second sentence?

I'm referring to this comment, and how you implied the liberal reaction to "it's ok to be white" is symmetrical to the conservative reaction to BLM. That's a relative common argument, but not for non-leftwingers.

No, I'm arguing it's symmetrical in the respect that 'if you ask people about the phrase in polls, they'll disagree with it in a way that doesn't reflect their broader views, because the phrase is mostly used as a political slogan divorced from the plain meaning'. Not symmetrical generally.

More comments

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