site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   39950 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There is also a long tradition of updating the setting of Shakespearean plays, starting with the original performances.

My wife once saw a stage version of Macbeth where the director managed to work in the plot point that Macbeth had a cave where he kept tons of dead babies. Sorry my comment isn't super relevant. I just wanted to share this crazy tidbit, along with stating my hatred of directors who bastardize plays in specific ways. I like updated Shakespeare in modern times, but I don't like Macbeth with dead babies. Maybe I like modernized Shakespeare because it helps me connect with it and understand it and feel it, but Macbeth with dead babies is just a director bullshitting with great works just cause he can.

I think my favourite along these lines is a televised production of Das Rheingold I saw where the river Rhine was represented by - a bucket. And the water nymphs were wearing wellies. Don't ask me who did it or when, I can't remember these details.

If the music/plot can stand up to these kinds of fancies, and still be powerful works, then they have true value and depth.

I honestly really want to know the rationale behind the Cave of Dead Babies. Did she take Lady Macbeth's line about having borne children and go bananas with it? The reason the Macbeths don't seem to have any living kids of their own is because Macbeth takes her babies and kills them and puts them in the Cave of Dead Babies? Does Lady Macbeth have actual real-life experience of dashing out the brains of infants herself?

I have given suck, and know

How tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me:

I would, while it was smiling in my face,

Have pluck'd my nipple from his boneless gums,

And dash'd the brains out, had I so sworn as you

Have done to this.

Is the Cave of Dead Babies a good thing? A bad thing?

I realize it's hard to do anything novel with a 400 year old play, so directors get weird. But not only is a cave of dead babies extremely gratuitous, it makes nonsense of Macbeth's characterization.

Haha, yeah. We tried to look it up just now to see if she could remember what the deal was, but unfortunately it was so long ago, like 19 or 20 years, so we really couldn't find anything about it. She told me, though, that she thinks it had something to do with Lady Macbeth's miscarriage. And she vividly remembers that the play had dead babies hanging from the ceiling. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Pretty sure there's a reason Shakespeare sounds better in Southern accents

Yep, there's definitely a history and connection there. Read this SSC article, if you haven't yet. Perhaps Scott's best article, if you ask me (even though it's just a book review)!

https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/27/book-review-albions-seed/

It mentions about how Appalachia was founded by the Scots Irish, who talked similar to modern country singers, and also how the South was founded by English gentry and their servants, who talked like Ebonics. And also tons of other interesting stuff, not the least of which is discussion about cultural determinism.

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