site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34538 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.

I'd say this is consistent with other established themes. Do you expect the group of entities literally named "Others" to care about tradition and fitting in in the way human society and human establishment does? Being -phobic is the bread-and-butter of the old Practitioner families. Don't confuse sticking to tradition and sticking to symbolism.

The Others don't come up with the rules though, it's the spirits (mostly) that do that. And in many ways they seem willing to change--they're adapting OK to new technology--but in matters of morality, they seem utterly set in stone except in whatever ways are most important to "modern audiences". Whoever is coming up with this morality (whether spirits or Others) I think it's silly for them to be totally inflexible on swords being male, but totally flexible on whether a person is male or female. These spirits should be totally racist as well, trying to stick people into well-defined roles based on the type of magic their practitioner ancestors did.

To be clear, I'd be fine with them not being like that if they were not portrayed as so inflexible in pretty much everything else.

But while Verona's issues are repeatedly and blatantly justified, Lucy and Avery mostly have to resort to wondering and imagining if their issues are even real.

I somewhat disagree with this, I think that the intended takeaway is that the issues are definitely real, but so insidious that even their victims are fooled into thinking that maybe they're overreacting. If anything I am a bit annoyed that their issues are so ubiquitous. For Lucy: Paul definitely left the family due to racism, her love interest also stopped trying due to his mom's racism, there was a racist teacher at the magic school, even the primary antagonist (Charles) has done some racist stuff unintentionally; I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. Avery has similarly had plenty of issues, though thankfully her magic stuff is so interesting that those issues get less attention.

I think Wildbow is trying to walk a tightrope because he wants those minority struggles to be a big part of the book, but doesn't want to include anything too cringey or unrealistic, so rather than having a few scenes with deplorable antagonists he litters the entire book with more subtly racist and homophobic characters. I get what he's trying to do but it kind of turns into the worst of both worlds, where you both get tired of all the attention given to these issues, but also don't have any exciting struggles or grave injustices you can watch the characters deal with.

The Others don't come up with the rules though, it's the spirits (mostly) that do that.

That's... pretty much just isn't true. The spirits don't come up with the rules, they observe patterns and do their part in passing them along.

That's... pretty much just isn't true. The spirits don't come up with the rules, they observe patterns and do their part in passing them along.

You're contradicting yourself now. I originally said

A universe so rooted in tradition would have little patience for female breadwinners, let alone something like transgenderism.

To which you responded

I'd say this is consistent with other established themes. Do you expect the group of entities literally named "Others" to care about tradition and fitting in..?

I'll grant that spirits "pass rules along" if you'll grant that spirits care a lot about tradition, which was my original point anyways.

I'm saying that what humans call tradition is only a fraction of patterns in reality. The existence of deviations from traditions is just as much a pattern. And Others, aside from those who explicitly represent human tradition, represent deviation.

So yes, spirits do care about tradition, but not exclusively like a human ultra-conservative would.

Eh, in some ways I agree, in others not so much. Others definitely don't represent deviation. Some of them do, sure, but a lot of them actually seem to represent tradition to a much greater extent than normal humanity. It doesn't really matter though. My greater objection is essentially that we've established that spirits care about "tradition" of some sort, but they seem suspiciously eager to validate some very new developments in human culture. You could claim that those new developments are something that have been around for ages among Others, but that just shunts the issue to them. Either way the author is going out of his way to make the magic system support his politics even when it doesn't make sense.

Whoever is coming up with this morality (whether spirits or Others) I think it's silly for them to be totally inflexible on swords being male, but totally flexible on whether a person is male or female. These spirits should be totally racist as well, trying to stick people into well-defined roles based on the type of magic their practitioner ancestors did.

First, there is absolutely an effect on how Others see you based on who your ancestors were. Second, you're making a mistake of assuming the spirits are 100% on "sword means dick, no arguments" based on the Implementum book, which is written by Practitioner society who love their rigid categories. Having a bias towards "sword is male" does not mean "totally inflexible".

Having a bias towards "sword is male" does not mean "totally inflexible".

I disagree, I think they are totally inflexible towards having that bias. It's not like some famous female warrior or even a god will ever convince the spirits that "sword means female". Similarly I would expect them to always say "penis means male" and "XY chromosomes means male" which would always be a handicap towards any trans practitioner attempting to adopt a female role. Not saying it would be impossible, but it would be impossible to lose that handicap entirely.

If anything I think that strategy would also make for a better story because it would mean more needs to be sacrificed to pursue your convictions.

It's not like some famous female warrior or even a god will ever convince the spirits that "sword means female".

Enough female warriors will. If anything, the fact that it's a bias and not a mandatory requirement even after thousands of years of precedent and symbolism speaks against it being "total". Your "penis means male" example is much more inflexible.

Enough female warriors will. If anything, the fact that it's a bias and not a mandatory requirement even after thousands of years of precedent and symbolism speaks against it being "total"

Well that's my point! The spirits never seem to outright ban anything at all--even lying is permitted for Onis, among others--but there is a headwind if you go against precedent.

And your objection is that it's not a good story because they don't ban anything outright, or what? If so, I'm afraid the flexibility has been built into the setting from the beginning. As Blake put it, everything is theater.

As far as this objection, I like that nothing is banned, but I think in some cases the headwind is also missing where it shouldn't be. My main objection, though, is:

what it boils down to is that Wildbow is a fantastic author, but chooses to make his story a vehicle for progressive ideology without meaningfully challenging even its smallest detail.

So many odd decisions have been made to artificially neuter the conservative side of things--doing things like just arbitrarily neutering by far the largest conservative institution in the world. Bare minimum, when an author does this, I expect them to have a more nuanced view of reality than just "Current Popular Thing Good." At least have ONE thing where you differ even SLIGHTLY from the popular ideology of the Current Day, and not in the "50 stalins" direction. Just one semi-political perspective which a mainstream progressive journalist would disagree with. Some ideas:

  • 14 year-olds are actually not very good communicators and don't speak like therapists, nor are they very emotionally mature for the most part

  • Sexual relationships without commitment are unhealthy, especially when you're really young

  • Religion has some benefits

  • Late-term abortion is not 100% ok for everyone in all circumstances

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