site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   37941 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If you've used right wing websites for any amount of time, you're bound to find someone pointing out the vast and far reaching influence of zionists in the US government, media, and finance. I'm sure you've seen the infographics showing the prolific and far reaching influence of groups like AIPAC or other powerful zionist special interest groups, as well the Epstein/Maxwell Mossad connection.

  • I define "zionist" as people with a real or imagined Jewish identity or loyalty, conspiring to promote their ideological and financial interests at the expense of others. This is done through finacialization, campaign finance and lobbying, and manufacturing consent through media.

  • Race is a social construct. George Soros literally changed his race to white, and worked for the Nazi party during the Nazi occupation of Germany during WWII.

Now, I've heard plenty of arguments pointing all of this out, but what are the arguments against it?

Since I'm capable of self-reflection, I'm aware that Black identity politics have a similar view of white people.

  • I might have a high probability of seeing zionists among journalists/bureaucrats/intelligentsia I don't like.

  • However, a Black person will look above them and see a white person in power nearly 100% of the time. After all, the diaspora of "white" people are quite prolific.

I want to try taking off my magic sunglasses that cause me to see zionists everywhere, and see a different perspective. Most left-coded media either denies that this is happening at all, or accuses you of being a bad person for noticing it. What other arguments are there against it?

Clearly given your username this isn't really a good faith post.

Can you explain? Is there some meme I don't know about?

It's a reference to the naming scheme that was used by the ban evasion subreddits for Million dollar extreme, which follows the Number, Currency, Rhymes-with-extreme pattern. Sure, I might be biased, but I've been reading a lot of rationalist stuff recently, and I've been reconsidering some of my viewpoints. (I'm a problem theorist, not a conflict theorist.)

"6 Gorillion" is a common revisionist jeer at the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust.

Would you please explain to me the thought process behind including this in your reply? If you genuinely believe this to be a bad faith actor then the appropriate response would either be to ignore and move on or to publicly register them as such first. Actual engagement, while an enticing option, is their intended goal - granting it to them just doesn't make any sense.

Alternatively you don't actually think that but you want to call out their belonging to a group/antisemitic signalling, in which case you may want to address that (e.g. Are people of differing ideological beliefs allowed to post here? Are they capable of posting here within the rules? Are usernames even useful for anything other than marking a continuous personality across conversations/threads?).

Would you please explain to me the thought process behind including this in your reply?

I would think it obvious. I understand that rationalists suffer from a form of institutionalized autism where in they genuinely believe that you can separate the reliability information from the source (IE that someone has lied dozens of times before should not be taken as evidence that they might be lying now) but that doesn't make theirs an accurate model of the world. Obvious bad faith actors are obvious and should be treated as the degenerative communal disease that they are.

To be clear, we are not talking about humans here, we're talking about alphanumeric strings on an an anonymous internet forum. IE the intellectual equivalent of bacteria in a gut.

What makes @GorillionRialGraphene a bad faith actor? Where are they lying?

The theme of my username is commonly associated with trolling campaigns.

I am aware that this is a very hot button issue to ask, and had cleared it with a mod before posting.

A post can be a bit, but not entirely, bad faith. Being "bad-faith" doesn't prevent its topic from being interesting to discuss. Maybe the 'best response' to a bad faith post is an earnest one. Maybe you want to convince readers, if not the poster. Even the worst poster - maybe an earnest response will plant a seed of doubt, or something.

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