site banner
ZorbaTHut  3yr ago (text post)   Edited 3yr ago   40947 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 2022

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.

40
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Namely, the censoring done by the liberal left, while there, is rather mild in the scheme of things and is probably much less than the same left would be censored by the people it currently censors if that group was in power.

Power corrupts, and if tables turn, you're right we'll probably be seeing right wing censorship. How do you come to the conclusion that it will be worse?

Every once in a while someone tries to trot out these old censorship controversies, and the most recent are things schoolboard in bumfuck, nowhere, voting to ditch some rat comic in their curriculum, followed by... the Dixie Chick controversy? Explicit lyrics labels? A bunch of Karens screaming about video game violence, and being completely powerless to stop it? The Hayes Code? I can only dream that progressives escalate their censorship to this level.

Right wing censorship seems vastly exaggerated from people on the left and grey tribes wherever I see it discussed. The NYT has been covering for communists since WWI.

followed by... the Dixie Chick controversy?

Just a reminder that no one called for the Dixie Chicks to be censored, and they weren't. Here's George Bush on the topic: "The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind...That's the great thing about America."

Their distribution on country music stations was cut off. That's textbook deplatforming and goes against the cultural value of free expression if not the legal construct of free speech.

Their tour continued, their CDs continued to be sold (though many customers stopped buying) and plenty of radio stations did continue playing them. Their record label also published their next CD which was "Not Ready to Make Nice". When they decided they wanted to speak up about what happened, they were given this platform. Not that bigtech was a gatekeeper at the time, but iTunes kept carrying their music.

Deplatforming isn't when you make your customers mad, but elites still love you and help you get your message out.

That is bad, though still not quite as bad as what happened to PWR BTTM, who got their discography straight-up deleted.

“A bunch of Karens screaming about X” is a good way to describe most censorship, regardless of affiliation. Banned books crop up periodically, especially when it’s Christians getting upset about witchcraft or evolution.

For the federal government, I’d count “don’t ask, don’t tell” as right-coded by today’s standards. Press coverage of Iraq was a message for various reasons, including censorship. The Bush II attitude to global warming was pretty explicitly censorious. We shouldn’t forget the Patriot Act either.

If you’re going back to the Hays Code, McCarthyism is fair game, and probably represents the high-water point of political censorship in the US.

In your view, how does McCarthyism differ from the present?

The famous blacklist was put together and enforced by the same people (California elites) who enforce cancel culture today. Private companies would also hire consultants who would enforce the official ideology in order to protect their reputation, much like they do today. Government bodies have ideology tests today. And we have our own HUAC.

“A bunch of Karens screaming about X” is a good way to describe most censorship, regardless of affiliation.

...but "but being completely powerless to stop them" does not.

Other than McCarthyism, I'd happily take all of the above applied to me by the progressive side. Can I please get a "don't ask don't tell" for pronouns, or even better, for politics in general?

I suppose not being a journalist helps. “Talk about military setbacks -> lose your career” seems a pretty bad look. Not so enforceable for water cooler talk.

The modern progressive equivalent to DADT is probably something more like mandatory gender neutrality in pronouns. That sounds worse than what we have, except for the “yes, drill sergeant!” case, where it’s already implemented.

I suppose not being a journalist helps. “Talk about military setbacks -> lose your career” seems a pretty bad look. Not so enforceable for water cooler talk.

The reason I shrug at that is we already have that applied to the non-woke. In fact we have worse, they'll go after your indie gig, if you cross them, not just fire your from MegaCorp.

The modern progressive equivalent to DADT is probably something more like mandatory gender neutrality in pronouns.

That's the opposite of DADT. Mandatory speech cannot be the equivalent banned speech.

Banned use of he and she? I was trying to copy DADT’s “erasure”—it doesn’t matter who you are in your free time; on base you’re a soldier and won’t mention that icky gender stuff. That seems the natural implementation of DADT for pronouns, and I think you’d be right to chafe under it.

Yup, I'll take it. Refer people only by their (chosen) name. There was a teacher fired for that.

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