site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   38048 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I get the impression from this and several of the replies (most notably those of @remzem and @SecureSignals) that a lot of users here simply do not understand the concept of "A Uniform" or what it represents in practice.

For the Record: The whole point of a uniform is that when you put it on you cease to be yourself and become a representative/manifestation of the larger group.

No one (or at least no one but the most terminally political) gives a shit if Kaepernick protests the flag out of uniform because "why should they?" The dude is entitled to his opinions isn't he? But when he protests in uniform, it is not Colin Kaepernick who is protesting the flag. It is the San Fransisco Giants 49ers and the National Football League who are doing so. That is why management was angry with him and why he ultimately got fired.

This also readily explains the various sides' responses to Reimer. If you aren't the sort of person who buys in to the left's bullshit about how "everything is political" (IE a bog-standard republican) simply refusing to don the uniform of something you do not support (and thus become that afore mentioned manifestation) is just the obviously moral and upstanding choice. But if you are the sort of person who believes that "everything is political" and "speech can be violence" the refusal to affirm something is functionally indistinguishable from active hostility towards it.

Edit: correction

Sorry I don't buy it.

The practical role that a duo like Brady and Bellicheck or a guy like James often plays is that of the villain/foil, often their "fans" are not the people following the games and it's pretty rare to see that mold broken. DiMaggio and Ruth seem to have pulled it off but the only one that really come to mind in my lifetime is Micheal Jordan, that is unless we count Pro Wrestling as a sport in which case we can add "the Rock" as well.

Meanwhile the timeline of ESPN of becoming "Sports TMZ" seems to map pretty cleanly to their decline viewership. Just a few days ago they were touting "huge growth" and "their best first quarter in years" with something like 600,000 average viewers in 18 - 48 range when back in the mid 00's when the movie Dodgeball came out they were pulling in millions.

Kapernick played football for the 49ers, SF giants are baseball.

You are correct, My bad. I've always been kind of a baseball guy and "The Giants" are just my in-built word association for "San Fransisco's Team".

Yes we should have standardized sports mascots. It's dumb that the Lakers, named after Minnesota's plentiful lakes, play in LA and the Cardinals play in Arizona. It's unfortunate that the brand is so locked in now but franchises should change as soon as they move.

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