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!

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