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.

However, in the end, I think they misjudge just how far the average Westerner, and particularly American, has moved away from them. People broadly suppost some level of immigration (and even a sharp reduction wouldn't head off "replacement"), don't think twice about interracial relationships, and like Jews. The white nationalist project of reimposing segregation is particularly baffling to me on logistical grounds alone.

I feel like this is an underappreciated point. I am under the impression that, within living memory, a great deal of the states of affairs dissident-right-types would like to return to obtained (in the US at least). Within living memory we had strong restrictions on immigration. Women and racial minorities were legally subordinate to white men. LGBT individuals were firmly in the closet across most of the country.

We transitioned from that state of affairs to the current one somehow. Even assuming we could get back to that state of affairs, what is going to prevent society from going through the same process again? Are women and racial minorities and LGBT people just going to accept their subordination this time? Are sympathetic white men going to somehow be prevented from gaining power? Of the 535 members of the 88th Congress, the one that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a whole 4 were black and 14 were women, after all. Most of the people wielding political power to the benefit of women, minorities, LGBT people, whoever are straight white cis men!

Are women and racial minorities and LGBT people just going to accept their subordination this time?

I have one question for anyone that genuinely believes this:

Are you high, fool?

Not enough effort. Banned for three days.

The basic issue is despite some famous by Internet standards people giving the idea that the median under-30 white male is some angry dude who thinks wokeness is destroying everything, not only is the Democratic vote among white males under 30 higher in 2020 & 2022 than it is among 65+ white males, the Democratic vote is likely higher today, than among those same 65+ white males when they were under 30.

So, not only is the "dissident" right losing the pure numbers game, due to immigration and intermarriage and everything else, they're losing any kind of possible support among their target demographic.

This is largely the result of women, no?

No, the youth vote even among young white males in 2022 was still D+4 Democratic. Obviously, that's not as good as the D+31 young white women have, but it's better than any other white male demographic. Even among young Latino's males, 57% went for the Democratic candidate, despite talk of Latino's going away from the Democrat's. In addition, as also noted in that data, that narrowness among young white males is driven by rural youth voters, who went 64-33 for the GOP, as opposed to 66-31 for suburban and 67-28 for urban voters.

I'm not saying it's a fait accompoli, but there's no actual evidence that ya' know, manosphere Youtubers, alt-right Twitter, 4chan, or anything is actually moving young males to the right by any large degree. It's a combo of already conservative guys going even further right, and basically, teenage kids being idiots and going 'norrmie' once they actually get laid or have to actually get a job and interact with different people.

https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/youth-are-not-monolith-how-different-young-people-voted-2022

just going to accept their subordination this time?

What kind of “subordination” do you have in mind? What specific policies are being advocated that you find objectionable?

I am under the impression DR types are generally in favor of state-backed discrimination against racial minorities and LGBT individuals (ala Jim Crow laws). As well as in favor of policies restricting women's ability to participate in society and politics as equals to men.

There's a very wide diversity of viewpoints in the DR. Claims made by one person may not be valid for another.

generally in favor of state-backed discrimination against racial minorities

The DR is in favor of racially homogeneous societies. There shouldn't be any racial minorities around to discriminate against in the first place, because they should be living somewhere else, among their own people where they can be governed by laws of their own making.

policies restricting women's ability to participate in society and politics as equals to men.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some influential figures in the DR who supported this. But in general the DR doesn't spend too much time talking about women's issues, because they're viewed as secondary to racial issues. More of a day 2 item than a day 1 item.

For what it's worth, one of the leaders of the UK group Patriotic Alternative is a woman, and the National Justice Party's official platform summary says nothing about women. So they're not exactly frothing at the mouth to put women in chains or anything.

The DR is in favor of racially homogeneous societies. There shouldn't be any racial minorities around to discriminate against in the first place, because they should be living somewhere else, among their own people where they can be governed by laws of their own making.

So, what are the implications of this for racial minorities that live in a society? Hard to see how one goes from a racially diverse society to a racially homogenous one in a way that does not entail the subordination of minority races.

For what it's worth, one of the leaders of the UK group Patriotic Alternative is a woman, and the National Justice Party's official platform summary says nothing about women. So they're not exactly frothing at the mouth to put women in chains or anything.

It's worth nothing. As long as there has been a movement for women's equality there have been women arguing for their own political and social subordination. The anti-suffragettes existed.

Of the 535 members of the 88th Congress, the one that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a whole 4 were black and 14 were women, after all.

How many of these people or people's descendants live in a racially-integrated neighborhood?

How many of these people, when asked if they would vote for it again, would say yes?

Are sympathetic white men going to somehow be prevented from gaining power?

Like you? The idea is that white men like you are not having kids, so whatever genetic component of ethnic tolerance there is is getting eliminated from the white gene pool.

Most of the people wielding political power to the benefit of women, minorities, LGBT people, whoever are straight white cis men

But isn't that a problem for the current regime? Once you've fixed that problem on your side, the only ruling white men will be ruling white tribes.

Most of the people wielding political power to the benefit of women, minorities, LGBT people, whoever are straight white cis men

Yes, white men gave democracy to the world and white men can take back democracy. Just like that.

Whether by going extinct or doing something else.

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