site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34507 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 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.

16
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Iirc, the reasoning was explicitly Doylist. Wildbow mentioned at some point that it seemed likely to turn into giant flaming culture wars and so he decided to just kind of ignore the entire glaring topic.

I figured, and he's done a pretty good job with that aspect of it altogether, but he's still very much fighting against Christian morality without really addressing the source of that morality. As one example, how about marriage? Marriage is literally a vow, generally to love and protect your spouse, but I haven't heard of a single practitioner getting forsworn due to a divorce. So maybe practitioners don't make the same vows? It raises all sorts of questions because you really would expect marriage to be just as if not more significant than a familiar. People should get forsworn for cheating on each other all the time.

As another example, hospitality is a big thing in-story, and to break hospitality is to invite loads of bad karma if not worse. How about responsibility to your family? This should be just as important but the universe seems to care very little for it, not penalizing parents for mistreating their children or children for rebelling against their parents.

So, totally separate from the whole god question, the nature of the universe should be inclined towards very traditional morality but isn't, and my assertion is that this is simply because Wildbow created an internally consistent magic system and then slanted it slightly to be more progressive. There's no way that a magic system that wants people to fit into clearly defined roles would like people being genderfluid or polyamorous.

btw I edited my previous comment just as you added that one, if you want to respond to the edit.

As one example, how about marriage? Marriage is literally a vow, generally to love and protect your spouse, but I haven't heard of a single practitioner getting forsworn due to a divorce. So maybe practitioners don't make the same vows? It raises all sorts of questions because you really would expect marriage to be just as if not more significant than a familiar. People should get forsworn for cheating on each other all the time.

This is actually a low-key important part of the story, though I think there's only 1-2 explicit conversations about it. Practitioner couples write up elaborate contracts, complete with punishment provisions and escape clauses, and then swear to follow the contract. They're taught from a young age to never make a promise to anyone else, especially in the heat of love/affection, and then their marriage traditions bend over backwards to ward off the possibility of foreswearing. And this has a bunch of downstream effects on practitioner culture, when every marriage is calculating and transactional and all human relationships are missing a core element of good faith and comradery.

not penalizing parents for mistreating their children

By what standards? I'd say historically, "child abuse" was common and often understood as being necessary.

or children for rebelling against their parents.

This seems really uncommon and difficult. It's quite possible that precedent and karma does factor in here.

There's no way that a magic system that wants people to fit into clearly defined roles would like people being genderfluid or polyamorous.

I actually liked how this was handled with Zed. It took considerable care and effort to essentially submit a "change of identity form" to the spirits.

By what standards?

Well, Helen's family springs to mind, they must fail any reasonable standard.

I agree with your point on marriage, but the point is that even emphasizing it to that degree seems a bit off to me. The universe itself should enforce marriage as its own Ritual, like a familiar ritual, aside from any explicit promises you make as part of it. Marriage is more than a contract and you shouldn't be able to simply define it differently using a few written words and expect the universe to comply, any more than you can just define a Demesnes to remove the part where you have to face challengers.

As far as Zed, it was handled as well as it could be, given that the universe is sympathetic. My issue is with the universe being sympathetic at all. I get that Wildbow doesn't want to write a story where the laws of reality are transphobic (though I'd argue that's all semi-realistic stories lol) and he's doing a good job given that constraint, but it does still produce inconsistencies.

The universe itself should enforce marriage as its own Ritual, like a familiar ritual, aside from any explicit promises you make as part of it.

Why? It's primarily Innocent business. Whatever connotations it had before Solomon, it's been thoroughly mundane'd since. It doesn't have to be "like a Familiar ritual" any more than buying a house as a practitioner "has to be like a Demesnes ritual".

Sure, it doesn't have to actually be a Ritual ritual, the point is that it should have quite a lot more weight to it than even something like buying a house, and the terms should not be so easily negotiable.

It does have more weight than buying a house, as for the ease of negotiation, that's a matter of opinion. Even actual Familiar rituals have wiggle room. You can even stretch them enough to have Familiar-Implements, Familiar-Demesnes and the rest of the permutations. If that's allowed, I see no reason why practitioners have to go along with Christian marriage vows word-for-word.

Well, Helen's family springs to mind, they must fail any reasonable standard.

I don't know that the standard is reasonable by modern sensibilities. Helen was given a dangerous opportunity for incredible power, and the whole schtick of it was that it had to be hidden from the spirits. The Graubard's might be a better example, but even then, they're "fixing" and "improving" their children.

How about that old crone from Pact? She was literally stealing her daughter's lifespan over and over again.

So maybe practitioners don't make the same vows?

I'm pretty sure it's either implied or said planily that practitioners don't make the same vows. Also, there's the "EULA argument", as follows: if no one actually reads the EULA when agreeing to it, then no one is actually held to it.

People should get forsworn for cheating on each other all the time.

I assume practitioners are selected for being slightly more able to keep the promises they made. But no doubt there are ones who got forsworn for cheating.

How about responsibility to your family? This should be just as important but the universe seems to care very little for it, not penalizing parents for mistreating their children or children for rebelling against their parents.

The universe appears to subscribe to the patriarchal model of the family where the patriarch rules and calls the shots and the children rebelling is his problem. That's traditional enough if you ask me.

The universe appears to subscribe to the patriarchal model of the family where the patriarch rules and calls the shots and the children rebelling is his problem. That's traditional enough if you ask me.

It doesn't though! I would be fine with that, it would be totally consistent, but if the universe actually worked that way then it would punish people for stepping out of line. A man who treated his wife and children with respect would take a karmic hit for it. In my original comment I mentioned female breadwinners. I think if the universe actually were that patriarchal, then there would be a clear and obvious karmic hit for allowing your wife to enter the workplace.

That's if you assume the universe sees being an iron-fist patriarch as a duty and not a right of the head of the family. When it's the latter, the patriarch would just as well get extra good karma for allowing liberties to his charges.

As for "entering the workplace", honestly this seems such a petty issue in the face of the larger corpus of worldwide tradition.

Obviously this is all a matter of how you approach interpretation. You appear to be aiming to dismantle the Watsonian explanations, while I'm aiming to create them.

That's if you assume the universe sees being an iron-fist patriarch as a duty and not a right of the head of the family.

OK, I feel like this is just the first objection that sprang to mind for you, because it's quite easy to come up with counterarguments. If you really think the universe sees this iron-fist patriarch thing as the right of the man, then you would expect matriarchies to be karmically penalized quite heavily because the woman is ruling over the man. In fact the story has already included a couple of powerful matriarchal families so we can rule that out.

I don't really want to waste more time on this hypothetical. It's quite obvious the universe is not in fact patriarchal the way you suggest it is.

As for "entering the workplace", honestly this seems such a petty issue in the face of the larger corpus of worldwide tradition.

Yes there have always been some women in the workplace, so just replace that with "women in positions of power" or "women joining armies" if you wish to and my point still stands. Even the rare historical examples of the latter 2 should not exist in this setting, due to thousands of years of tradition from before civilization really existed at all.

Obviously this is all a matter of how you approach interpretation. You appear to be aiming to dismantle the Watsonian explanations, while I'm aiming to create them.

Yes, this is what it comes down to. I mostly love the magic system, what bothers me is that it has turned into more and more of a vehicle for a very specific and common modern ideology, and as it has done so more and more inconsistencies have arisen in the text. I have no incentive to continue creating ever more ludicrous explanations for the inconsistencies when it's easier to just shrug and say that this is obviously just how the author wanted it and so that's how it is.

Pointing out the inconsistencies is the easiest way for me to gesture at my main point, which is "this author has built a setting explicitly to support his ideology." The inconsistencies make it much more egregious, because it means the author cares more about the ideology than about the setting, but even if it were perfectly consistent I would still take issue with it. This reminds me a bit of the complaints towards The Cold Equations. Even though that book was perfectly logically consistent, people complained that the story itself is engineered such that its conclusion is foreordained. I particularly like sci-fi editor John W Campbell's complaint:

So we deliberately, knowingly and painfully sacrifice a young, pretty girl... and make the reader accept that it is valid!

Work too hard to contort your setting into supporting your ideology and I will get annoyed, whatever the ideology. This example is somewhat more sensitive to me though because the Pact/Pale setting has probably my favorite magic system, and I am watching it get eaten alive by banal, generic ideology in real time.

Work too hard to contort your setting into supporting your ideology and I will get annoyed, whatever the ideology.

That works both ways, I'll get annoyed when someone works too hard to dismantle a setting based on their dislike of the ideology it's built with.

The premise and the conflict of the story is that it's hard to break pattern and stereotype - but not impossible. Indeed there wouldn't be much of a story if everyone had to go along with the weight of thousands of years of tradition.

That works both ways, I'll get annoyed when someone works too hard to dismantle a setting based on their dislike of the ideology it's built with.

Sure, but I'm not annoyed by the ideology itself, I'm annoyed by the damage it does to the setting. In particular I'm just tired of reading about the sex lives of 14 year olds in an otherwise fantastic book.

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