site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   38206 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.

Something lost in the Martha’s Vineyard story is that the island is the vacation destination of the wealthy Democrat elite. Its architecture, town planning, and aesthetic preference are relics of a bygone era, Massachusetts’ original European American history. If you’re unfamiliar with the island I urge you to have some fun in google street view; I’m familiar with it because I vacationed there with a cousin who was doing an opera program, if that doesn’t explain enough. It calls to mind an earlier America of fabulously wealthy well-bred Europeans living in Federalist-styled homes over generations, exerting control over the planning of towns and showcasing their wealth with opulence and beauty.

The demographics of Martha’s Vineyard are also a relic of the past. It is 2% Latino and .3% Asian, 88% white with some parts 100% white. Its 0-9 age group is 94% White, 0% black, 0% Asian, and 0% hispanic, with the rest “mixed”.

The symbolism of Martha’s Vineyard is strong. Here is a place for wealthy white democrats to live in a Disneyland of traditional White America. They may claim that they stand with immigrants, when the Hebrew Center goes door to door handing out posters, but they have consciously chose to live in a White American paradise, where the demographics, aesthetics, and political influence are direct ancestors of 19th century Massachusetts. I suppose it’s easy to advocate for Democrat policies when you inherit a mansion on Martha’s Vineyard, and the Floridian governor is highlighting this dissonance by sending as few as 50 Hispanics to the island, enough to cause a national controversy.

https://www.mvcommission.org/sites/default/files/docs/web01_MVSP%20FINAL%20PRINT%202019-03-21-3.pdf

https://statisticalatlas.com/school-district/Massachusetts/Marthas-Vineyard-School-District/Race-and-Ethnicity#figure/ethno-racial-composition-per-year

Diversity for thee, not me me. 'Red' areas, in general, tend to be much more diverse ,especially economically, and culturally , and even racially, compared to wealthier blue areas. If you go to any urban red area, the full spectrum of America represented...poor people, rich people, blacks, Latinos, conservatives, liberals, girls with piercings and tattoos , rednecks, single mothers, etc.

The demographics of Martha’s Vineyard are also a relic of the past. It is 2% Latino and .3% Asian, 88% white with some parts 100% white. Its 0-9 age group is 94% White, 0% black, 0% Asian, and 0% hispanic, with the rest “mixed”.

Probably white includes Jews

'Red' areas, in general, tend to be much more diverse ,especially economically, and culturally , and even racially

I would like proof of that diversity trend.

Diversity for thee, not me me. 'Red' areas, in general, tend to be much more diverse ,especially economically, and culturally , and even racially, compared to wealthier blue areas.

While I'm sure you can find some red county that is more diverse than some blue county, I am extremely skeptical that this holds as a general statement. Red states in the midwest, for example, tend to be somewhere between very and overwhelmingly White (in the 75-90% range). Red states in the traditional South are not as White as the Midwest thanks to substantial Black minorities, but are still distinctly majority White and tend to lack other large minority population. Texas and Florida are the big outliers.

Within-state comparisons tend to be a similar story, e.g. in Illinois downstate is a) very white b) very red, while the purple collar counties and blue Cook/Chicago have large minority populations.

I mentioned other forms of diversity: cultural, educational, economic. These are often more important than just race.

Red states in the midwest, for example, tend to be somewhere between very and overwhelmingly White (in the 75-90% range).

That's probably because it includes large rural populations.

consider the racial makeup of Austin Texas:

White (Non-Hispanic) (48.2%), White (Hispanic) (21.2%), Asian (Non-Hispanic) (7.65%), Other (Hispanic) (7.58%), and Black or African American (Non-Hispanic) (7.4%)

Berkeley, CA actually has a higher % of whites (50%) and smaller % of Hispanics (14%)

Texas is a huge outlier compared to other red states (and Austin is quite liberal). LA county is half hispanic and has large Asian and Black minorities as well, and the state as a whole is about 1/3 white, 1/3 hispanic, and about 1/3 everyone else.

I mentioned other forms of diversity: cultural, educational, economic.

And I find this equally questionable. Major metro areas are generally very blue and also the most diverse along almost any axis unless you're engaging in a lot of categorical gerrymandering.

The metro areas where the GOP loses least badly mostly have very large Hispanic populations- pheonix, DFW, Houston etc.

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