site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34571 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 Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If I had to steel man the idea of making all villains white, it would go something like this:

Before the vast majority of Western history, minorities, especially blacks Hispanics and to some degree Asians have been caricatured. When mass media first came about this was accelerated to an unprecedented degree.

After decades and decades of this harmful depiction, negative stereotypes have been baked in. In order to reverse the already baked in trends, we will need at least a few decades of vilifying white people. Then maybe we could have equal representation and declare that the war against whites is over.

To be clear I don’t exactly advocate for this position, but I do think it has a sort of insidious logic around balancing the scales so to speak. And I would agree that minorities still deal with more racism than white people when it comes to day to day interactions, in America. Institutional bias is a different animal, and conflating the two muddies the water in my opinion.

We want the pendulum to stop, not to keep swinging back and forth victimizing different groups every couple decades.

Mmm, I used to. But now I'm just out for basic vengeance. Sorry. I get that this makes me the problem, but I just don't think I care. I don't have it in me to take all this demonisation of me on the chin and forgive and forget.

There's a simple reality-check available for this. Try living for a month without power/water utilities or spending any money. Then assess which is stronger: your desire for revenge, or your fondness for modern amenities. The demonization sucks, but revenge, iterated sufficiently, plausibly results in you drinking your own piss.

I think that's probably an exaggeration of what would happen if my country suddenly stopped being diverse via magic. I'm frankly unclear how my life is improved in any way by it being so in the first place, though I am assured day and night that it is.

Are you somewhere other than America? And what do you define as "diverse"?

You should want the vengeance pendulum to stop because it can, at least potentially, destroy absolutely everything you know and love. There are routes from where we are now to complete social collapse and very large heaps of skulls. Those routes are, I think, less improbable than most people seem to appreciate. If we go down them, and you do not get the fuck out, your quality of life will trend downward very significantly.

The water still runs and the banks still process withdrawels. It can get a lot worse from here.

Did you finally chill out? I seem to remember you being on the other side of that debate, describing the present situation as intolerable, and the outcome unavoidable.

The present situation is intolerable, and the outcome is inevitable based on the current trajectory. This is because too many people on both sides want revenge are going to keep pushing until they get it. They ought not to do this, and they should be told as much when possible, despite the obvious fact that they're going to do it anyway; doing so maximizes the slim probability that some out-of-context event defuses the situation before society throws a rod.

I'm actively trying to chill out, yes. Most days I do pretty good at it. Attempting to facilitate the breakdown of our existing society, through word or deed, remains a profoundly seductive idea, but I couldn't find a convincing argument for why doing so isn't evil. More to the point here, the seductive power of revenge fantasies is largely derived from one's blindness to how that revenge actually plays out. No revolutionary thinks The Glorious Victory is going to result in everyone they know and love dying, or in a century of poverty and ruin, or in widespread plague and cannibalism, even though those are likely outcomes, historically speaking. I don't actually think such outcomes are necessarily deal-breakers for revolution; sometimes the fight really is worth the following decades of misery. But when you reach for that sword, you should have a clear view of what you're actually signing us all up for.

You can’t extrapolate certain worrying developments to infinity. Still, good to hear. Let’s keep this rickety society from plunging into the abyss for a while longer. Default state of the civilized man, I reckon.

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