site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35021 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
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A great moment for change and reform was wasted

But was it though? I mean, which exactly change and reform we needed that BLM was supposed to usher? If we had the (--true socialism--) Saintly BLM, untainted by all the grift and hate and politicking, what would it do? Until the wokes and DIE grift complex came in, the racism in the US was on its last legs. I mean sure, there are some Nazis hiding around in the forests and mountains, steeping in their hate. BLM wouldn't fix that. All the rest have pretty much moved beyond that in the 2000s. The whole "systemic racism" is an obvious grift and bullshit, there's nothing to fix there - neither can it be fixed, the "systemic" definition prevents any attempt at rational consideration of it. The squalid conditions of some black communities are real, but BLM never tried, or intended, or had any plan, or idea how to fix it (I don't count "defund the police" as a plan because really...).

You say this energy was "wasted". I say that's the whole point of the whole charade - to "waste" this energy, which otherwise could be directed - maybe, don't hold me back here, I'm dreaming - towards figuring out how comes the squalid conditions are there, who is responsible for them continuing for decades and maybe even - that's the most ridiculous part of all - it is time for some accountability for people that held the power there for these decades and presided over it. There was absolutely no indication of any sliver of such ideas anywhere in BLM. It's all "white supremacy that" and "systemic racism this" and the rest is just open grift. The whole thing was created for directing the frustrations of people into a convenient outlet, and harvest them. It's not "waste" - it's how it was supposed to work, and it worked just as it was supposed to. There was no "reform efforts" because the whole thing was meant to prevent any reform (really needed for the police, for example, but impossible in current environment). It's not some "idiocy", it's a clever and careful and effective and very evil design. Of course, not by thugs mostly peacefully setting fire to the businesses of the very people they're supposed to be "supporting", but by those who enable and support and organize all that.

But was it though? I mean, which exactly change and reform we needed that BLM was supposed to usher?

Maybe a general movement against police brutality or the Drug War?

Formulating a movement about police brutality in strictly racially antagonistic terms (remember, "white lives matter" is a Nazi slogan) is about the worst way to approach it one could think of. It automatically loses half of the political spectrum, confuses the message (should we be against brutal cops who are black? What if they are brutal against whites?) and assigns the blame to people which have no control over the problem. The execution of course was way worse - "let's convince people to fight police brutality by setting their city on fire and robbing Amazon trucks, so they'd run screaming to the police and beg them to please save them from this savagery".

As for the Drug War, I don't remember any BLMers ever asking for any legalize or other anti-DW measures. Not even medical marijuana (which is the basic of basics). They pushed for shorter sentences and such, but again strictly on racial grounds - if you are of a correct race, no matter if you are murderer, rapist or just smoked a joint in a wrong company, you need to be released.

Yes, fighting both causes would be a good thing. Unfortunately, BLM by its inception, design and ideology is completely incapable of doing either - not because they were stupid, or lazy, or dishonest, but because it is impossible to do it in a setup like that, like it's impossible to walk to the Moon.

Formulating a movement about police brutality in strictly racially antagonistic terms (remember, "white lives matter" is a Nazi slogan) is about the worst way to approach it one could think of.

Well, yes. I assume that's why OP said it "was wasted, turned racial and political, for division instead of unity."

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