site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   33221 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But your claim was specifically about self-identity

I'm terribly sorry but you appear to have made a mistake(don't worry I've made it on here before, and I think quite possibly with you in particular!) - I'm not who you were arguing with and didn't make any of those claims. That said it seems like I deserve some of the blame if I missed the context of the points in your post.

The issue is not whether or not people divided the world into groups, nor that they were able to understand that some people spoke different languages or practiced different religions.

No, the reason I used the term gentile is because it quite literally translates to "nations", at least as far as I can see in every single source - though I freely admit to not being able to speak ancient Hebrew and hence am relying on the work of others. The jews saw the people around them as "the nations" and even used the same word to refer to Judah - these people were very much using the term nation in the same sense that people do today, and I don't think the idea that they didn't explicitly state that Israel has a right to exist means that they aren't referring to a nation. There's very clearly a continuity of concept here and I don't believe it is worthwhile to say that "nationality" didn't exist in the past when it seems to me what you're actually saying is that the term nation acquired certain political connotations in the 19th century that it did not explicitly have previously.

Yes, sorry I did confuse you with OP.

No, the reason I used the term gentile is because it quite literally translates to "nations", ... these people were very much using the term nation in the same sense that people do today, and I don't think the idea that they didn't explicitly state that Israel has a right to exist means that they aren't referring to a nation"

But I believe that is a different meaning of "nation." In particular, the reference to Israel indicates the use of "nation" as a synonym for "state." But Israel is not a "nation" in the sense meant re nationalism. The Jews, in the eyes of Zionists, anyhow, are a "nation." So are the Kurds (in their own eyes), the Basques (ditto), etc. Israel is a state, or more specifically, a "nation-state.".

Part of my problem here is that I am not saying anything idiosyncratic. Rather, I am simply stating the standard understanding of historians and political scientists, which is why I said OP's claim re the dissolution of the Austrian empire was ahistorical: It is inconsistent with the standard scholarly understanding. And, there is a lot of scholarship on this; nationalism is possibly the single most historically significant idea to be developed in the last 300 years (other than classical liberalism and, perhaps, Marcism). Now, perhaps that understanding is incorrect. Perhaps the concept of nationalism is much older than they say. But, it seems to me that in order to show that, one must engage directly with those claims, which I don’t see happening thus far.

Israel is a state, or more specifically, a "nation-state.".

Sorry if I was being unclear again here, but I was talking about the ancients - I am not so sure that the Kingdom of Israel qualifies as a nation-state, especially when you had the Kingdom of Judah right next door. But the main reason I had for bringing up the ancient hebrews is that the term goyim has historically been translated as "nations", and the Romans had their Natio. There's clearly a concept here that people have been using for thousands of years, and our modern conception of the term nation is very much a development of that idea, especially when the concept of a "right to exist" would be nonsensical in the context of the late Bronze age.

Now, perhaps that understanding is incorrect. Perhaps the concept of nationalism is much older than they say.

This starts getting into murky territory and playing games with language, because I think that the Romans and Greeks of antiquity actually did have a national identity. What exactly was it that united the Achaeans, Dorics, Ionians and Aeolians? They recognised each other as related, and the Romans just called them the Greeks. And speaking of Greeks and Romans, which were the Byzantines? Just to clarify, I'm not saying that nationalism as we know it was a serious force or motivating factor in people's lives, but it very much seems to me like there's a continuity of concept here that people have been aware of at some level for a considerable amount of time, to the point that we are still using the same words they did when we describe it.

This starts getting into murky territory and playing games with language, because I think that the Romans and Greeks of antiquity actually did have a national identity.

One thing it is not, is playing games with language. When historians talk about nationalism and national identity, they mean something very specific. I am no expert on the ancient Greeks, but when you say, "What exactly was it that united the Achaeans, Dorics, Ionians and Aeolians?," isn’t the answer, nothing? Did they see themselves as one people, or four? The mere fact that they saw themselves as related is not particularly relevant --so do Americans, Canadians, Aussies, and Brits. Nor is it relevant that the Romans saw them as Greeks, because the concept of the nation is all about self-identification.

More importantly, this is all a bit off topic. The modern concept of the nation might have had a precursor or two; after all, the idea must have come from somewhere. And the Jews, being the victim of an expulsion and having been treated as "others" for a long time, are a likely candidate, because self-identity as a nation often grows from being othered, as well as from historical events like expulsions (the residents of Palestine, for example, probably thought of themselves as Arabs, rather than Palestinians, pre-1948). But the initial claim, that a multiracial state is impossible to maintain, because look at the Austrian empire, is based on an assumption about the nature of identity which is inconsistent with the scholarly understanding thereof.

and Greeks of antiquity actually did have a national identity.

I am no expert on the ancient Greeks, but when you say, "What exactly was it that united the Achaeans, Dorics, Ionians and Aeolians?," isn’t the answer, nothing? Did they see themselves as one people, or four? The mere fact that they saw themselves as related is not particularly relevant --so do Americans, Canadians, Aussies, and Brits. Nor is it relevant that the Romans saw them as Greeks, because the concept of the nation is all about self-identification.

No, they actually did see themselves as one people - the Greeks/Panhellenes, and the usage of that term dates back to the Iliad. Similarly, the Byzantines self-identified as Romans despite being ethnically Greek, speaking Greek, living in Greece and being called Greeks by the descendants of the Western empire.

More importantly, this is all a bit off topic. The modern concept of the nation might have had a precursor or two; after all, the idea must have come from somewhere. And the Jews, being the victim of an expulsion and having been treated as "others" for a long time, are a likely candidate, because self-identity as a nation often grows from being othered, as well as from historical events like expulsions (the residents of Palestine, for example, probably thought of themselves as Arabs, rather than Palestinians, pre-1948).

I don't think the jews are a good candidate for the birth of the idea, but you're right that it is actually off-topic.

But the initial claim, that a multiracial state is impossible to maintain, because look at the Austrian empire, is based on an assumption about the nature of identity which is inconsistent with the scholarly understanding thereof.

This I can actually agree with - maintaining a multiracial state is absolutely possible. After all, the Romans kept it up for quite a long time.

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