site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   38253 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 New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If I owned Twitter, I wouldn’t let feminists, trans activists, or socialists post. Why should I? They’re wrong about everything and bad for society.

Huh? Them being wrong about everything is precisely the reason you shouldn't try silencing them. The only way to give them the rope to hang themselves with is to let them talk in from of common people, and reveal what they truly believe and want.

Indeed, this is why Libs of Tik Tok is so despised amongst the intelligentsia. She's not generating content or perpetrating hoaxes herself, she's just holding up the mirror and that's the last thing a lot of these people want.

Not because (outgroup) triumphalism is incredibly grating? Or because her coverage reeks of sensationalism? Because fact-checking takes an obvious backseat to a good outrage, as I’m sure @TracingWoodgrains will attest? Or because she’s a transparent partisan more interested in scoring cheap points than on anything the “intelligentsia” actually value?

Maybe it’s her position in the linguistic side of the culture wars. Or the association with TikTok, which already pisses off people over 50, and Twitter, which pisses off most of its users. Or her determination to construct the worst argument in the world by asserting that “libs” are best judged by a curated outrage stream.

Or maybe she just comes across as a bitch. I don’t know. Point is that there’re plenty of reasons to disagree with her coverage that aren’t just “they hated Jesus because he told the truth.”

If the intelligentsia hated transparent partisans they'd have to hate the entire intelligentsia

Fact checking

Have we gotten to the point where we're pretending now that TW wasn't having to produce active forgeries about the matter when Libs of TikTok expressed the exact criticism you're saying she didn't have?

I'd link to TW's post describing everything he did during that entire event, but for some odd reason, it was deleted. Funny, that.

Hm? My post is right here.

When did Trace's post get deleted? Was it during the original shitstorm, or was it more recently after some activists decided him clowning on LOTT for internet points was Bad, Actually as part of attacking BARPod? I think it was the former, but...

I deleted my motte summary during the initial storm. Needed to take a step back. The post itself was never deleted and I have no plans to delete it.

No one is "pretending" anything. Trace got quite a bit of blowback for that stunt (even on his own sub!) and I think realized that it wasn't his finest moment. He even explained at the time why he deleted his post. There's no sinister attempt to memory-hole things.

Handpicking the most outrageous content isn't "just" holding up the mirror. Indeed, if the only thing necessary to denounce the Wrong People was to let them talk, there would be no need or demand for sneer outlets of all varieties.

I think it's an important service when one of the first kneejerk responses you'll get when criticising the woke is "nobody actually says that" or "it's just a few kids on tumblr" (remember that? how far we've come).

So? Your model of the world isn't proven just by demolishing the weakest arguments against it.

It gains additional evidence by refuting lies issued against it tho?

Where are the strong arguments?

Not on LibsofTikTok, I'm somehow convinced.

The movement literally is full of Ph.Ds and law degrees who get tripped up over the question "what is a woman?"

this still blows my mind.

After a decade + of culture war and 50ish years a queer theory, you'd assume they'd have a canned definition... like not a good one that most people would accept... just a definition, anything.

You ask a libertarian phd to define the state, or a marxist to define the market, or a nazi to define "Ze Jew" or "Ze Race"... sure most would agree... but they'd have a clear thought out answer. Even if they didn't they'd be happy to riff on it and explore their ideology and get into the weeds of the debate...

The fact these professors of queer studies not only don't have an answer, but KNOW they don't have an answer, and know they'll lose their jobs if they get drawn into the academic exercise of trying to sound out an answer... on a basic concept within their own ideology....

THat is very unique in the history of western universities and political thought.

If most people use weak arguments, why is it my duty to provide them with stronger ones?

And I mean in the real world, not here, so don't quote the rules at me.

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