site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34513 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 Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In 2022's Batman, there is a scene where a gang of white men attacks an Asian man and tries to pressure a new member into beating him up. The recruit is a young black man, the only nonwhite person in the group, who clearly does not want to do this and resists the temptation of these bad men. This is not an outlier for the movie, as every villain is very deliberately cast as a white man. This scene is especially egregious though because it is deliberately set up to reference to the stories of violence against Asian people in New York and other American cities. If you recall, this violence was also blamed on white supremacy despite the demographics of the majority of the perpetrators.

One of my biggest redpilling moments was when I learned that the tale of Epic Beard Man, which I had greatly enjoyed online in video and in meme form, had been adapted into movie called Bad Ass. Only, instead of a black thug harassing and attacking a poor old white man until he was forced to defend himself, the studio changed so that the bad guys were a pair of neo-Nazi skinheads.

I sure started paying a lot more attention to which demographic controls Hollywood after that.

(Which statistic also explains why there are OVER NINE THOUSAND holocaust films but only one Holodomor film).

Meanwhile, normies don't even understand that movies are not intended to be a faithful representation of reality, let alone that they are actually propaganda. If you talk to 100 IQ people about films like The Untouchables and Gladiator it becomes clear that they don't think of them as fiction, but as documentaries, and are surprised to learn that the things they saw onscreen bear only a very loose resemblance to reality.

(Not that documentaries are always much better, but at least they pretend to care about the truth; meanwhile, a movie like Alexander feels perfectly justified in condensing three major battles into a single engagement for no other reason than that the narrative structure of the film doesn't have room for three major battles against the Persians).

Making things worse, normies just don't watch old movies, so all the preconceptions and biases they bear come from The Current Year. Perhaps, much like C.S. Lewis recommended the reading of old books, we should recommend the watching of old films. As Eliezer Yudkowsky said in "Eutopia is Scary":

Movies that were made in say the 40s or 50s, seem much more alien—to me—than modern movies allegedly set hundreds of years in the future, or in different universes. Watch a movie from 1950 and you may see a man slapping a woman. Doesn’t happen a lot in Lord of the Rings, does it?

(But that's hard to do when so many old movies are not easily available; I have a theory that the real reason behind perpetual rabid copyright expansion and piracy crackdowns is to prevent old material from competing against the Cathedral's contemporary brainwashing).

I'd like to conclude by recommending a great thread over at CultureWarRoundup about the misconceptions that the popular Netflix miniseries, The Queen's Gambit, is sure to promote among the general public.

I sure started paying a lot more attention to which demographic controls Hollywood after that.

You really can't think of any reason why the West, a civilization whose left-wing intellectuals cast the Holocaust as a mortal and unique sin in the 60s, would make lots of movies about the Holocaust but not as many about a civilization they don't belong to?

It makes my mind spin that you would attribute this to the Jews instead of progressives.

You really can't think of any reason why the West, a civilization whose left-wing intellectuals cast the Holocaust as a mortal and unique sin in the 60s, would make lots of movies about the Holocaust but not as many about a civilization they don't belong to?

And what is the reason that that civilization's left-wing individuals elected to cast the Holocaust as a mortal and unique sin? Pure coincidence?

They were Marxists who believed that what had happened was completely unacceptable. That they were Jews certainly drove them, but their arguments are done with reference to Marx and that whole web of ideas. And what else is a Marxist going to cast as the greatest sin but the genocidal actions of a fascist regime?

Edit: My apologies, I misunderstood the question.

I would agree with the idea that Jewish groups in the 1960s were responsible for making the Holocaust the most important thing in that group's cultural history. My point is that you do not need to point to Jews in Hollywood as an explanation for why you get so many Holocaust movies. People make WW2 movies because it's a big part of our history, and they would do that regardless.

Yes it's not Jews in Hollywood, it's Jews in academia, government, the media and Hollywood.

As Joe Biden puts it:

“Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense.

There's a disconnect between the existence of Jews in those areas and the accusation that it's the relevant identity. To do this, you would have to argue that the motivations and thought processes are distinctly about being Jewish. Your own article notes the following.

...while Jewish opinions run the ideological gamut, they have clustered heavily on the left end of the political spectrum.

So now you have to demonstrate that left-wing Jews are being motivated by their religion, not their political ideology.

To do this, you would have to argue that the motivations and thought processes are distinctly about being Jewish.

Yes they are. Or at least it's something that Jewish people have that led to such an over-representation of Jews in these movements. Not that other people cannot have these traits/motivations.

So now you have to demonstrate that left-wing Jews are being motivated by their religion, not their political ideology.

That influential Jews have clustered heavily on the left-wing side does not mean that religiousness is the cause of their left-wingness. Perhaps there is something about the population of Jews that makes them likely to become left-wing.

Of the revolutionary, government-destabilizing kind. After all, Jews as a population always had a tendency to support at least one minority ideology, which was that unlike everybody else, they would only marry Jews.

From an intellectual point of view, one could see how individual Jews could historically be perceived as thought-criminals compared to the rest of the society they lived in, that followed different customs and different (religious) values.

I didn't talk about religion, I believe it has to do with biology. Being Jewish is about ethnicity, about the 'Early life' section of wikipedia.

Jewishness is transmitted by the mother, hardly ever through conversion, the traits that are stereotypically associated with Jewishness such as 'high verbal IQ', 'academic prowess', 'accumulating wealth', and some other ones are probably inherited or influenced by some inherited factors.

The religion itself has an impact as well, as it's a supremacist religion, but because it shaped these populations over centuries by evaporative cooling, similarly to the Amish, the religion is not a requirement. Many Jews that identify as atheists still hold jewish supremacist views. The nationalism arose from religious precepts but became a custom.

For example Albert Einstein was an ardent zionist but not very religious afaik.

So I would say that while the religion was the historical driver of jewish nationalism/supremacism, over time it led to selection of traits that result in nationalism/supremacism/minority-driven revolutionary movements that do not necessarily require religious beliefs.

These days many Jews seem to be driven by the meme of the Holocaust as a uniquely awful tragedy more than traditional religious beliefs.

But the fact that these less-faith-driven Jews still are a fertile ground for strong political activism over such memes may speak to certain qualities that they've inherited without the faith: the tendency to believe themself a chosen people that is unfairly targeted, uniquely persecuted, utterly unable to assume any blame for any possible reason...

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