site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   35053 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.

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.

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?

A boycott is just one way of running into material limits. "I don't want to buy your shitty product" is another. If you want to claim that this is what you meant by boycott, that boycotts are usually require deliberate action and organization, the lack of which you cited as evidence, while not wanting to buy shit does not.

Then there's what I called "political" limits. If everyone around you is pointing at you and calling you a clown, you might find yourself ostracized from the industry. This sort of stuff hurts even if you have tons of popular support, as Louis C.K. and Dave Chapelle show.

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.

Yes, like I said in that case the mundane explanation would become "the books actually are this controversial, the publishers are just following the will of the market". In either case it would not be possible that the mundane explanation is not true.

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