site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33047 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.

I think they’ll ultimately win. It’s just that really they’re still in the foundation stage of the movement. Almost any real political upheaval is a generations-long process of first creating a philosophy and ethos and then unify around that philosophy and work to implement it. But if you’d have judged the communist movement by what it was in 1870 when it was first taking shape, you wouldn’t have predicted the Russian revolution. The tumultuous nature of the current generation of reactionaries doesn’t mean much because I believe it will eventually settle on an ethos that will be United enough to win real power.

It seems to me that it's the fraction of angry young men you have on your side that matters more than the absolute number. If your side has all the kids, then you will have disproportionate power regardless of how many octogenarians hate your guts.

Is there really? Old men don't fight wars, the octogenarian legions might look mighty in a democracy, but if you're angry enough all the old people yelling doesn't matter if you're holding the gun.

Indeed. Also, the armies, police forces and militias that successfully put down rebellions of angry young men in the past were themselves recruited from huge pools of young men living in fecund societies. And also, fecund but stable societies in the past drew their stability from masses of married or at least paired-up young men having an investment in the future stability of that society. In demographically imploding atomized societies, there won't be many of them around either, so the two factors cancel each other out.

I doubt that failed anti-government rebellions were ever normally put down by men in the 50-60 or 40-60 age bracket.

Is that right though? Actual boomers are well into the senior citizen bracket, and I think there was a bit of a baby bump for millenials/early zoomers which gives them a pretty big numbers advantage over genX.

We are smarter and would win in a fight obviously -- but honestly most of that generation seems if not on board with the status quo much too coddled to do anything about it.

That comparison isn't really between revolutionary societies to current western societies. It's between pretty much every other society, nearly all of them (revolutionary and otherwise) in the past and most of them in the present, to current western societies.

Angry young men is a bit ambiguous, though, and I'm not sure the "angry young men" of today are comparable to those of the past. Before, the rabble were employed as productive labor in critical economic activities and had broader real-life social connections with one another. Now, at best they're criminals, and at worst they're living in their parents' basements addicted to porn and video games. The past cohort was a much more fertile ground for revolutionary impulses and organizations to develop.

I also suspect that due to selection effects (or lack thereof) for the last several generations the average quality of young men qua young men is simply lower.

People also go on about testosterone but didn't Scott write something questioning that?

I wonder how it's going to pan out with the current demographic trends. Past societies weren't really getting the old/young ratios to properly test this theory. How is it going to feel to be young in a society where every young voice gets shouted down by a hundred angry grandpas?

I mean, Japan is ahead of the West and the ruling party is as strong as ever.

Yeah, but Japan is the poster child of "falling fertility rates" and the infamous work culture there probably won't last much longer than its elderly population.

I would guess an uneasy detente until one group of kids decides to stop respecting their elders and bowls them all over.

Generation X already got this.

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