site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   31539 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 22, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A clear and very delightful essay from Wayward Axolotl in 2017 on free speech being a means toward the unalloyed good “social rationality”:

What is freedom of speech?

People often confuse the principle of free speech with a specific law intended to protect free speech, such as the first amendment of the US constitution. Freedom of speech is not a specific law, or set of laws. Freedom of speech is the principle that coercion should not be used to suppress ideas.

What is freedom of speech for?

The primary function of free speech is to enable social rationality. Social rationality means thinking together. Discussion and debate are ways of thinking together. They are ways of solving problems and making decisions together. Freedom of speech creates a space in which people can freely exchange ideas, and thus think together.

Freedom of speech is necessary for social rationality, because otherwise alternatives cannot be presented for consideration. Without freedom of speech, the majority or official opinion is the only one that can be safely expressed. Under those conditions the social belief system is fixed. Errors cannot be corrected, and new ideas cannot be explored. Thought requires the freedom to consider alternatives. It requires an open mind. A society that does not permit free speech has a closed mind. It cannot think. Freedom of speech protects society from becoming trapped in a vicious cycle of conformity.

This got me thinking about Google, which is in a round of layoffs of thousands of employees. I find myself thinking conspiratorially: this would be a great time for them to purge all remaining wrongthinkers from their midst, possibly using their AI to pick those who hold such “hateful” ideas as James Damore.

I have no evidence at all, nor have I heard of such a thing happening. The thought was partly inspired by the military having a similar purge under Obama and now Biden, such that the top generals and admirals are reported (on rightward and far right media alike) to be fully “globohomo” at this point.

Those of you in Silicon Valley or STE(A)M professions, do you know anyone recently laid off from Alphabet, and what their views are?

Something about the name “Wayward Axolotl” really makes me think “nRx.” I’m not sure why.

I must object, as usual, to the slur catchall term “globohomo,” which I find both imprecise and inflammatory. It equivocates between the hard power of a neoliberal consensus and the soft, cultural power of American idpol. While this is very handy for channers looking to gesture at the outgroup, it’s a terrible fit for this community.

This is brought into relief when considering the military. I have no doubt that the higher echelon advocates quite strongly for globalism in the sense of foreign commitments, power projection, and military spending. I would not be surprised if they espoused a general sense of American exceptionalism while considering Russia and China both militarily and ideologically threatening. But what about gender politics? About race? Has the lumbering behemoth of the US military really internalized a narrative with less than 10 years of momentum?

Keep in mind that generals are not made in a day. Promotion in the American military is, no pun intended, quite regimented. You are looking at men and occasionally women with long service histories and longer lists of credentials. Consider the most recent candidate for a four-star position, Gen. Randy George. Aside from having one of the most red-tribe names I’ve ever seen, he has both enlisted and infantry officer experience, two Master’s degrees, a laundry list of command positions, and a combat paradrop. He is married with two children. I’m sure he’s also reasonably tactful and capable of saying all the right catchphrases.

It’s possible that this career soldier, who enlisted under Reagan and has more combat experience than this entire forum combined, is “fully globohomo.” I picked him knowing nothing other than that he was top of the pending appointments section on Wikipedia, so it’s also possible that he’s the exception rather than the rule. But is he what you’d expect to see from Democrats attempting to hollow out the military?

A military career is supposed to survive more than one president. It is intentionally very insulated from the back-and-forth of our politics. I think of the top brass as an oil mediating between transient politicians and the enormous inertia of the armed forces. They will make sure the garrisons get filled and the shipping keeps flowing. If that means making mouth-sounds about diversity or pushing around the MEPS requirements, so be it. Those changes are superficial compared to the business of projecting US power.

I must object, as usual, to the slur catchall term “globohomo,” which I find both imprecise and inflammatory. It equivocates between the hard power of a neoliberal consensus and the soft, cultural power of American idpol. While this is very handy for channers looking to gesture at the outgroup, it’s a terrible fit for this community.

Hard agree.

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