site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33048 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 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 it's true the Grossberg lawsuit is the reason for Tucker's firing - (there's also a LA Times story that Rupert thought Tucker's 1/6 coverage might get them in trouble), it proves that the Right needs to learn that yes, you can probably make "cancellable" statements about minorities in a college-educated conservative-leaning workplace, because any minorities who work in such a place aren't going to be upset about it or they'll just agree.

OTOH, making jokes about which female Governor candidate you'd rather have sex with is likely to upset even otherwise quite conservative women at that said workplace, because even in a right-wing space to the right of much of the nation, the median conservative woman is still going to be upset about openly sexual comments like that. 1960's/1970's feminism - aka, I can have my own job, financial independence, not getting fired for getting pregnant, and freedom from open sexism in the workplace is basically believed by 90% of women in the US.

The Right needs to learn this, or they'll keep ending up in the same place.

And where are we going to be in another few decades?

The Right needs to learn that 2010s trans activism - Trans Women Are Women, respect people’s pronouns, etc - is believed by 90% of people even in a conservative workplace.

Someone needs to put their foot down.

Someone needs to put their foot down.

Are you defending people's right to discuss which governor you'd most want to have sex with in the workplace? I don't think that's ever been an acceptable topic. You could probably get away with it in small workplaces where you're joking with friends and it'd never leak, but I think it'd pretty much always cause controversy if it was leaked.

Yes absolutely. That's a normal, fun conversation for adults to have.

No it is not. It is completely degenerate and not a suitable thing to discuss with others. Bodily functions are generally something we keep to ourselves, no different to how we don't announce whether we're going to do a Number 1 or a Number 2 every time we excuse ourselves to visit the toilet. I'd lose respect for someone who brought such a topic up even in private.

Your society is oversexed to an extreme degree, but because a lot of the overt sexuality agrees with the standard hetero paradigm Westerners (even conservative ones) are content to let it pass. However when you get displays of Queer sexuality that are if anything less intense than the Hetero ones seen as completely unremarkable there is an outrage by the conservatives about societal decay.

Physician, heal thyself!

  • -14

Bodily functions are generally something we keep to ourselves, no different to how we don't announce whether we're going to do a Number 1 or a Number 2 every time we excuse ourselves to visit the toilet.

LOL. In coarse (and generally all-male, though not always) company "I've got to take a shit" or "I've got to piss like a race horse" are perfectly acceptable ways to excuse oneself to visit the toilet. It's only in overly-refined company that such things are considered rude.

However when you get displays of Queer sexuality that is if anything less intense than the Hetero ones

Saying that drag queen story hour is less intense than anything is pretty rich.

But sure, I'll bite the bullet. It's a fair trade. I will fund drag queen story hour, I will hand out fliers, I will work the concession stand, if it means we stop jumping down people's throats and threatening lawsuits for every little joke and off-color comment they make.

Gay, straight, I don't care, whatever. I just wish everyone would stop having such a stick up their ass about everything all the time.

DQSH doesn't even need to be sexual if done in a certain way, the same way that nudity doesn't need to be sexual. Two people passionately kissing though is definitely sexual.

I maintain that DQSH is less inherently sexualised than a man and a woman in skimpy swimsuits kissing. The latter though is fine to show to 10 year olds on TV/Netflix and completely normalised, but the former is a massive travesty according to modern western "conservatives".

Ideally I would have none of them, but to get "your rules applied fairly" we need both.

One is normal and needed to propagate the species whereas the other is abnormal and lessens the propagation.

More comments

If this be degeneracy, make the most of it.

a) You're not blue collar

b) I don't even believe you.

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