site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35018 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 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.

12
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You should be careful to not talk broadly about academia unless you actually mean it in its entirety. If you have a problem with specific fields, then you should say that instead. To tar all of academia would require a great deal of evidence, of which you haven't posted any.

I think it would be easier to list the places where it isn't a problem than list the bad eggs.

That might be your null hypothesis, it isn't mine. I want to see evidence of the problem permeating all of academia if that's the claim the OP wants to make.

Sure. State the way I would demonstrate the evidence.

  1. List the fields you include in academia.

  2. Demonstrate on the per-field basis that the field is mostly ideologically homogenous in favor of the left (I would tentatively accept the conflation of liberals and progressives in this context, but not liberalism and progressivism).

  3. Demonstrate on a per-field basis that the field's mainstream or dominant narrative/consensus about it's own subject is progressive-coded or aligned.

  4. Demonstrate on a per-field basis that the narrative is wrong (This is an implication from the OP).

  5. Demonstrate on a per-field basis that a person is subject to more than just scholarly ostracism for questioning the mainstream narrative.

That is an extreme amount of work and it is stacked against the person making the very non-extraordinary claim. Particularly part 4 is, because if the hypothesis is correct, publishing counter narratives will be difficult/impossible.

More importantly, shouldn't academic fields have to continually prove that they are credible? It seems silly to assume credibility, otherwise I can start a pet psychiatry field, and under your system, this is a credible academic field until someone does lots of work to prove 2-5 on your list.

The claim is that all of academia is tainted by progressives. I warned the OP against claiming such a thing and made it clear they would have to provide a great deal of evidence to demonstrate it. This is why I suggested sticking to specific fields to make that complaint about, because the work is already done in many cases. If they had talked about it, I would agree with the OP that a field like CRT (or would it be Critical Race Studies?) is hopelessly captured by social progressives. But just because I agree in this case doesn't mean I'll let a bad argument slide.

Critical studies. Education. Sociology. Psychology. Journalism/Communication. Business. Law. Those are pretty much the large departments (for most universities) where publishing something related to race/sex would be relevant. You'd be hard pressed to get a paper published in any of the major journals in those fields if your conclusion was "race discrimination against URMs (or whatever the popular phrase is now) is an illusion." If your career was largely oriented to publishing such papers, I don't think you'd get a tenure track position at a place equaling the quality and relevancy of your publication. See, for example, https://twitter.com/ProfDBernstein/status/1642600739489849344

I'm not totally sold on that, in particular because I know of fields dominated by progressives where studies are frequently put out that don't support the progressive line. I would agree on Crit studies, sociology, education, and journalism, but not necessarily the others. My intuition is weakly in your favor though on those others.

Regardless, notice what you didn't include - STEM, which makes up a big part of academia. Economics as well. This fits my point fairly well, that it's too strong a claim that all of academia is tainted.

More comments

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