site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32935 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 27, 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.

I think that when some people hear "[X negative trait] is a dogwhistle for [Y group]" enough times, they say to themselves, "I guess I hate [Y group], because I hate [X negative trait] and it's associated with [Y group]". I've heard this sentiment many times before from extremists, and I haven't seen anyone write about it other than Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer (I don't have a link on me), and, more recently, Alternative Hypothesis. It could be them working backwards to justify their own animosity using words that are "straight from the horse's mouth", but I think this idea isn't given enough consideration by people who aren't white nationalists. This surely does happen to some people. The question is, is it a big enough problem to warrant less calling out of dogwhistling?

I don't like dogwhistle discourse anyway, so my opinion on this is colored by that. I'd just like to hear what other people think. If I'm onto something, then maybe well-meaning progressives could and should be convinced to be more cautious when accusing someone of dogwhistling.

Alternative Hypothesis

His tweet is just bizarre.

If you oppose endless wars, that's anti-jewish. If you oppose CRT and black terror, that's anti-jewish. If you oppose kids being brainwashed into castrating themselves, that's anti-jewish.

I have never seen anyone do any of these. Ever.

With 'Wall Street' etc. it's pretty clear that some people do in fact use such terms as a dog-whistle for Jews, but I don't see how criticising that somehow plays into their hands. Saying that someone else is using such terms with antisemitic intent doesn't at all imply that they are correct in viewing the two as synonymous.

His argument is that these are all policies created and promoted by Jews. I've heard leftists say that opposition to abortion and transgender kids is anti-Semitic, and Alt-Hype is saying "yes, actually, opposition to everything you dislike is opposition to Jews."

Clarification about my post: When I said I've heard this many times from extremists, I mean in actual conversation with them. This is just a rare example of someone putting it into writing.

I've heard leftists say that opposition to abortion and transgender kids is anti-Semitic

Where?

If I spend an hour collecting articles, will you reply or do the Darwin ghosting thing?

I will indeed reply

great, I'll try to find time this weekend.

Before you do do that, I should say that I won't regard with much important very niche commentators or outlets making such claims (and I would also still say that the whole line of thinking of AltHypothesis et al. makes no sense - even if I say that someone is dog-whistling, that doesn't have to imply that I think they the dog-whistle really is synonymous with the thing being whistled, if that makes sense).

For reference, Scott also referred to this issue in You Are Still Crying Wolf. To wit:

Stop responding to everyone who worries about Wall Street or globalism or the elite with “I THINK YOU MEAN JEWS. BECAUSE JEWS ARE THE ELITES. ALL ELITES AND GLOBALISTS ARE JEWS. IF YOU’RE WORRIED ABOUT THE ELITE, IT’S DEFINITELY JEWS YOU SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT. IF YOU FEEL SCREWED BY WALL STREET, THEN THE PEOPLE WHO SCREWED YOU WERE THE JEWS. IT’S THE JEWS WHO ARE DOING ALL THIS, MAKE SURE TO REMEMBER THAT. DEFINITELY TRANSLATE YOUR HATRED TOWARDS A VAGUE ESTABLISHMENT INTO HATRED OF JEWS, BECAUSE THEY’RE TOTALLY THE ONES YOU’RE THINKING OF.” This means you, Vox. Someday those three or four people who still believe the media are going to read this stuff and immediately join the Nazi Party, and nobody will be able to blame them.

Stop saying that being against crime is a dog whistle for racism. Have you ever met a crime victim? They don’t like crime. I work with people from a poor area, and a lot of them have been raped, or permanently disabled, or had people close to them murdered. You know what these people have in common? They don’t like crime When you say “the only reason someone could talk about law and order is that they secretly hate black people, because, y’know, all criminals are black”, not only are you an idiot, you’re a racist. Also, I judge you for not having read the polls saying that nonwhites are way more concerned about crime than white people are.

If I'm onto something, then maybe well-meaning progressives could and should be convinced to be more cautious when accusing someone of dogwhistling.

What's your model of progressives in general and well-meaning progressives specifically? By my lights, well-meaning progressives are already being very cautious when accusing someone of dogwhistling, because being well-meaning necessarily involves being highly skeptical of tribal behavior that flatters oneself as being so perceptive as to see through enemy obscuring tactics while also attaching negative affect to said enemies. As such, I'd expect that the number of well-meaning progressives who currently are accusing others of dogwhistling without sufficient caution and who would be amenable to the type of argument you present in your post would be vanishingly small.

I see progressives as people who think racism, sexism, and transphobia are big problems in society and that these threats manifest as colorblind systems of oppression, rather than individual choices. They think we live in a white supremacist patriarchy, as evidenced by differences in outcomes, and that part of dismantling the white supremacist patriarchy is using fewer microaggressions. Nobody uses the word "microaggressions" there anymore, but the underlying idea that toxic attitudes and phrases can contribute to a culture that justifies violence against women or minorities is still there.

Well-meaning progressives are people who actually believe this and don't cynically parrot it because it's what people in their social circle do. I think that because they truly believe that one must be careful with language to avoid supporting systems of oppression, they could be convinced that referring to globalism as a Jewish dogwhistle is as bigger deal than saying "you guys".

But maybe they already have been.

being well-meaning necessarily involves being highly skeptical of tribal behavior

I think "well-meaning" means "people who you have to be charitable to by assuming they are well-meaning until you can prove otherwise", not "people who are actually well-meaning".

There's also the flip side of this, which is "[X positive trait] is a dog whistle for [Y group]", which likely has similar effects. (Reminded of this specific example by @ymeskhout's post in the QC thread)

This gets back to group differences. At the end of the day it’s extremely taboo to point out any negative differences at a group level. Unless of course that group happens to have been “historically powerful” aka white people or men.

This is a holdover from liberalism which has been breaking down as actual liberalism is finally being implemented. I suspect that over time we’ll either smooth out the differences between groups through intermarrying or technology.

If not, we may be heading into a difficult situation. I’m not convinced the modern world, with the amount of sheer destructive potential we have at our fingertips, can survive without a liberal culture. At least not until we can all fuck off to different planets if we don’t like our current one.

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