site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33065 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 New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't see why slavery in the US is at all relevant to the UK in a historical sense.

The international English speaking left is actually extremely Americanized. They will often come off as anti American, but they are really just anti red tribe.

The right tends to be more rural, small town, outdoorsy, and proud of their nation's history. They are often painted as wanting to Americanize their countries but really it's just that they have no particular grievance towards red tribe America and don't see any problem with borrowing ideas that seem to be working.

The left sees itself as part of an international progressive movement to improve the world. The movement is largely centered in the US and had it's greatest victories there. The enemies of that movement must be demonized. Even if they are thousands of miles away.

So the left in the UK will talk about America a lot. The BBC has things like Doctor Who meeting Rosa Parks instead of exploring racism with local history. Obama is extremely beloved and above criticism in a way that he isn't in the US.

I find it a very interesting topic that isn't widely discussed.

TBH I sort of wanted to say that but my post was already getting quite long. I end up writing things and leaving in words like 'historical sense' that try to delineate between historical logic and the gravity well of US cultural dominance. But, quite reasonably, nobody gets the meaning from these single words I leave in because it's not terribly clear. There was going to be a sentence about how it was an effect of US cultural hegemony.

I suppose that's the whole point of discussion boards, people can expand on individual points they like most. You put in more than I was going to.

This topic is a hobby horse of mine which I've written about more than once in the context of Ireland.

Here's a test I use with some of my UK friends who are "political"*: how many US Supreme Court judges can they name? How many of their representatives (local, national, or Westminster) can they name?

I usually play this game during a discussion on the epistemic value of democracy, after I have raised the claim that democratic politics is more entertainment than a deliberative process. US politics is much more outrageous and "interesting" than their local councillor, MP, AM or whatever; it entertains them more, so they invest more of their precious time and energy following it.

You might say that UK politics is more high profile, but it's very easy nowadays to find out e.g. your council area, and even to carry on an extended email correspondence with councillors about some issue that's bothering you. In my experience when I lived in the UK, local politicians are often relieved to be talking to people other than the "usual suspects" of cranks, and in the UK system (especially England) there are politicians with meaningful authority and small electorates, so they are often interested in what specific local people think about them.

On the other hand, they're not being talked about in online political spaces, like US Supreme Court judges.

*With a few exceptions, my UK right-wing friends are either older and can name more than just their MP, or younger and apolitical in general, except maybe a few lines they will parrot from Jordan Peterson or some other Youtube celeb. It can be very weird to be talking to someone who is uninterested in politics or social theory suddenly start saying, "The problem with Marxism is that it just looks at hierarchies of dominance."

Yes, this is my point: they are political for the entertainment value, not to actually accomplish things.

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