site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   28390 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 29, 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.

6
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

has values that are antithetical to the pilot values

China. Most Britons and doubtless RAF pilots would and do abhor their form of government.

And yet, no Viet Cong ever called me a nigger.

Now how exactly is the Chinese form of government different from the UK in practical terms right now? What is it that you would be defending that is practically different?

And before you make any invocation of the natural freedoms of Englishmen or to democracy, remember this is the UK right now we're talking about. A regime led by a bureaucrat that owes his seat to a coup where people are routinely harassed by the police for speech the government disapproves of.

Now how exactly is the Chinese form of government different from the UK in practical terms right now? What is it that you would be defending that is practically different?

The UK government did not literally weld people into their apartment buildings to enforce covid lockdowns. It has not within living memory shot protesters en masse in the streets or run them over with tanks. It does not throw its citizens into internment camps for believing in the wrong religion. It has not within the last century so thoroughly destroyed its own economy and agricultural production that tens of millions of its people starved to death or sent forth mobs of brainwashed children to smash the graves of their ancestors with sledgehammers or stone their relatives and friends to death on made-up charges to meet a quota.

There are more worlds of difference between the Chinese and British governments than there are in the solar system.

The UK government is committed to replacing the British population with foreigners from all corners of the world, regardless of what voters have to say: https://twitter.com/t848m0/status/1560662923101347840

In 100 years time, judging by present trends, China will be Chinese, albeit old and authoritarian. Britain will be one of several North Atlantic Economic Zones.

It really doesn't matter, in the grand scheme of history, what the Iroquois domestic policy was, if they had a coup or whether they had famines from time to time. Does the nation actually exist as an identity? Does it have sovereignty over land? Those are the most important questions.

This is the key issue here. Why does the UK expect British people to show loyalty to a government that is trying to take their country from them, that has no concept of national interests? If you turn a nation-state into an economic zone then don't be surprised if your soldiers become mercenaries.

It has not within living memory shot protesters en masse in the streets or run them over with tanks. It does not throw its citizens into internment camps for believing in the wrong religion.

Not to say that the UK is as bad as China, but this isn't strictly true. 1971 saw British troops shoot dozens of protesters or just people going about their day indiscriminately with Bloody Sunday and the Ballymurphy massacre. And 2000 people were interned without trial, some being tortured, in Northern Ireland over 4 years starting in 1971.

A regime led by a bureaucrat that owes his seat to a coup

Probably not much continuing here now thar these points have come up in your other comment but this is absurd. This is just how the Westminster system functions and even this party-orientated system has been the norm for coming up on a century. It's called the 1922 Committee for a reason.

When you are on your third PM since the last election there is a real question of democratic legitimacy for their current administration.

With that said, I think there are a lot more complaints about the British system compared to the above (eg lack of freedom of speech).

When you are on your third PM since the last election there is a real question of democratic legitimacy for their current administration.

How so? He has the support of the MPs we all elected on the understanding that they could if they wished replace the PM with another.

Under that logic you would never need another election. After all, you already elected the MPs once.

Well no, because those MPs have to renew their democratic mandate at some point. Legitimacy does wane with time so one has to strike a balance between allowing them time to do something/avoiding ultra-short-termism and allowing the people to have their say. I'm not sure what the connection here is with the question of replacing PMs though.

But no, they have elections once every few years so voters can vote those MPs out if they don't like their PM selection.

I'm an American and prefer the American way. But the British system is a valid electoral system.

Because generally speaking when people voted Tory they were voting for Boris. At a certain point, the ruling regime is so far from what people voted for it would be appropriate to call for a new election.

The only reason Tory’s don’t is because they’d lose.

No, they voted for an MP. If you look at the ballot papers, they all have the names of local MPs. Nowhere is Boris Johnson mentioned, except for the ballot papers in his constituency.

That’s not quite the same but somewhat equivalent to saying “i voted for electoral college electors.” Everyone knew that if the Torys won, Boris was PM.

I'm not American, but my understanding is that ballots have the name of the presidential candidate you're voting for on them and that electors are legally bound to keep faith with that.

At a certain point, the ruling regime is so far from what people voted for it would be appropriate to call for a new election.

I mean it's still pretty similar under Rishi. Are there any enormous policy differences between the two (Truss was something of a departure but she was dumped out anyway pretty quickly)? This sort of has to be the case given the structures. After all it's the same set of MPs in the House so, while the PM can wield patronage to influence behaviour and in general sets the agenda the Parliamentary balance of opinion prevents any huge intra-term changes in direction.

I agree the Chinese government is abhorrent but what makes them so much worse compared to the UK government? That is, sure China is worse but the UK government also sucks.

Surely whatever you think about the UK, any plausible faults are on a completely different plane to those of the Chinese state, especially if the complaints you're levying are the aforementioned ones about affirmative action or whatever. Most importantly of all of course is the total absence of any genuine democracy or appreciable freedom of the press in China. Certainly to the extent that assisting China militarily because you were hacked off at a diversity initiative is indefensible.

First, I don’t really value democracy qua democracy. Second, the point isn’t just affirmative action (which is wrong) but actual dislike and disgust toward whites and specifically white males. That hatred will eventually lead to big problems for white males.

So while China sucks, strategical strengthening an enemy may in fact be beneficial. Granted, I wouldn’t strengthen since it believes in Han superiority. But the basic concept of strengthening the enemy of a regime that despises you isn’t a crazy idea.

So while China sucks, strategical strengthening an enemy may in fact be beneficial. Granted, I wouldn’t strengthen since it believes in Han superiority. But the basic concept of strengthening the enemy of a regime that despises you isn’t a crazy idea.

Strengthening foreign enemies of the regime is almost by definition strengthening people who believe in their own superiority over you. If not China, then whom? Russia? ISIS? No outsider is going to help native Britons out of the goodness of their own hearts, and I daresay most of the world still despises them more than their own government does.

but actual dislike and disgust toward whites and specifically white males

This is so terminally online. Are you British? I have literally no idea where you have picked this idea up.

  • -22

Reading the relevant emails posted in the first link.

Literally one email does not substantiate a grand declarative statement about the condition of the nation. Did you miss the part where they were paying thousands in compensation to those adversely affected by the scheme?

  • -10

Actually, it sorta does. It shows people were in positions of power and felt comfortable using this kind of language.

Could also point to other comments (eg SNP leadership)

people

Well, a person. I'm not being pedantic, one piece of evidence is always insufficient to demonstrate a broad trend, because that you can prove anything.

Could also point to other comments (eg SNP leadership)

Such as?

More comments

This is so terminally online. Are you British? I have literally no idea where you have picked this idea up.

Did you read the OP in this thread? Declaring shocked ignorance isn't the great argument you think it is.

Yes. His evidence for a sweeping assertion about British society was one bad email. I think we would need a little more evidence than that to make an assertion as broad as he did.

  • -14

Here's a counterargument. China does despise white people, they are just better at hiding it due to East Asian cultural norms.

Meanwhile in the West, while its true that white males face serious dejure discrimination, we are still on the top of the social hierarchy in some ways. For example, white men have an easier time finding dates with women. This "revealed preference" of women shows their true beliefs. Even if they might claim to view all races equally, they prefer white men.

So I think you are overestimating hate for white men in the West and underestimating it in China.

Men do not face de jure discrimination, they face de facto discrimination. It is still technically illegal to discriminate against white men.

You are right. To be more technical...

  • The law: Everyone is equal!

  • The law as it is enforced: White men are heavily discriminated against in hiring, promotion, contracts, grants, etc... and this is perceived as a good thing.

  • Actual revealed preferences of most real people: White men are great.

It's telling that many women of color who are racist culture warriors will still have white husbands.

Oh I noted that China believes in Han superiority. I don’t doubt the PRC loathe whites. And I wouldn’t buddy up with the PRC. My point is that buddying up with the enemy of the UK may not be a bad idea.

China seems to have a hierarchy of Han->honkees->everyone else. Which puts the white people above the bottom, anyway, unlike in more enlightened countries.

The majority of the world, except for the west, seems to have a hierarchy of local dominant group->whites->everyone else->local minorities.

There is no freedom of the press or genuine democracy in the UK.

The PM is a party man the public did not vote for and people are routinely arrested for disagreeing with government ideology.

The PM is a party man the public did not vote for

Welcome to the Westminster system. The public did not vote for him, but they voted in the MPs that chose him as leader. A slight degree of removal but every action he wants to take (at least in the realm of primary legislation) must be voted upon by the people's elected representatives and those representatives could remove him and his government at any time should they wish to.

people are routinely arrested for disagreeing with government ideology.

Like with @Lizzardspawn before I respond to this I'll ask you a question; is it your genuine belief that the Chinese state does not restrict freedom of speech to any considerably greater degree than the British state?

I'll just try to answer here instead of having two threads for the same points.

I believe that using constitutional means of removing elected representatives in favor of bureaucrats approved by the real power structure is accurately characterized as a coup.

I believe that the current regime in place in the United Kingdom is no less totalitarian than the one in China. I believe it has similarly declared totalitarian designs, when challenged it has made similar exceptions to individual freedoms, and it has no ideological mechanism to stop it from growing more oppressive to those it sees as it's ennemies.

I can name ennemies that have suffered similar repression and harassment. I can name truths that are not allowed to be said. I can name people killed without trial. I can name ethnicities whose property has been seized. I can name statutes that allow the government to break the law. And now I can even name ethnic cleansing initiatives.

I don't like that things are the way they are. But I don't think it's in any way rational to consider the UK a free state. And I would like the case to say it is one still is to be explicitly stated and solid enough it doesn't sound word for word like Chinese propaganda.

I'm glad to be wrong. But why is the UK in any sense of the word freeer than China?

I can name ennemies that have suffered similar repression and harassment. I can name truths that are not allowed to be said. I can name people killed without trial. I can name ethnicities whose property has been seized. I can name statutes that allow the government to break the law.

Please do.

And now I can even name ethnic cleansing initiatives.

The initiative under discussion here clearly discriminates based on ethnicity and may reasonably be called racist and even, given that it is coming from a state institution, institutionally racist. Yet it is still very far from ethnic cleansing, which is the targeted killing or expulsion of ethnic groups from large geographic areas. Unless you had a different example in mind, no, there is no ethnic cleansing in the UK.

But why is the UK in any sense of the word freeer than China?

White Britons are yet to be placed in concentration camps.

I believe that using constitutional means of removing elected representatives in favor of bureaucrats approved by the real power structure is accurately characterized as a coup.

This is a complete misstatement of what happened. Going through each mistake here. Boris was not removed as an elected representative, he is still in the position to which he was elected; he was never 'elected' as a PM by the people, other elected representatives gave him that position and so they can take it away. He was not replaced by 'bureaucrats' in any sense, Sunak is an MP in exactly the same manner as Johnson, and is PM by the same implicit process. Who or what is the real power structure? He was removed by elected representatives who feared keeping him in would sink them at the next election, as the polling evidence indicated that it would. In fact, this shows the remarkable responsiveness of the Westminster system to public opinion. By electing MPs we invest them with the power to choose the Prime Minister, that is a fundamentally sound democratic process and has been the case for centuries. Your case implies that no Westminster system anywhere can ever have been legitimate by design, which is absurd.

I can name ennemies that have suffered similar repression and harassment. I can name truths that are not allowed to be said. I can name people killed without trial. I can name ethnicities whose property has been seized. I can name statutes that allow the government to break the law. And now I can even name ethnic cleansing initiatives.

Care to do so? Or shall we simply remain the land of vague generalisations.

But why is the UK in any sense of the word better than China?

Just sticking to the freedom of the press for now (there are many other issues of course but best to go one at a time). To put this in the simplest terms, what substantial opinions do you think one cannot express in Britain?

He was not replaced by 'bureaucrats' in any sense, Sunak is an MP in exactly the same manner as Johnson, and is PM by the same implicit process. Who or what is the real power structure?

Yeah and Charles III is a king in the same sense Charles I is.

Truss' removal had nothing to do with the BoE and power rests with the British people.

You're free to believe such delusions but don't expect me not to notice that they're as fictitious as China's.

Care to do so?

Let's just do one of each.

Tommy Robinson. Biological sex is immutable. The Springhill massacre. Russians.

Yup. In UK they arrest you for misgendering and in China about mentioning Tianamen

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html

Before I respond with anything else is your genuine belief that the Chinese state does not restrict freedom of speech to any considerably greater degree than the British state?

In which country are you more likely to actually be arrested (or at least have the police show up) for posting in contradiction of state mandated beliefs? I actually don't know the answer. I do hear about it more often from the UK but that doesn't prove much for multiple reasons.

In which country are you more likely to actually be arrested (or at least have the police show up) for posting in contradiction of state mandated beliefs

——— This is definitely, definitely China. It is difficult for me to express the absolute incredulity I have for people seriously comparing Western states to the PRC.

Well look at it this way, could you find a single case in Britain comparable to that of Qin Yongmin?

That seems like a matter of China having had repressive policies for longer (Seems Qin's saga started in the 80's), not that they're necessarily more repressive now.

Sure but he was rearrested and jailed again only a few years ago.

In the same order of magnitude. Just different things you cant say. British libel laws are notorious. And the police is quite active in anti bigorty and hate speech online.

China cares about things people say that towards the state, UK - what people say to each other. Since I am quite fond of China retaking Taiwan, suppressing Tibet and don't give a fuck about Tiananmen - I don't think I can get in trouble with my speech in China ...

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