site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   33999 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Does a Clinton or Biden really ensure it? As far as I know, wannabe journalists do not have it easy during Democratic administrations. And why would a rich person not just give their kids money directly rather than indirectly through trying to manipulate the levers of government? It takes more out of their pockets but on the other hand, is more sure of success. Some parents have the attitude of "make the kid learn by working for their own money", but making it so that the government supports them would be almost as bad for such a policy as giving them money directly would be.

And why would a rich person not just give their kids money directly rather than indirectly through trying to manipulate the levers of government? It takes more out of their pockets but on the other hand, is more sure of success. Some parents have the attitude of "make the kid learn by working for their own money"

The driver here isn't the rich parents, it's the adult children of rich parents in the lumpen-PMC. They simultaneously want to inherit the status and comfort of their parent's class like you can in the old world, and still be seen as having "earned" that status independently, like Americans.

That's what colleges are selling to people with useless degrees - it's a way to launder their parent's money into the child's "accomplishment".

Does a Clinton or Biden really ensure it?

Biden has certainly pulled every lever he could reach to send as much money as he can to universities. His initial student loan bailout had a cost of hundreds of billions before SCOTUS spiked it...

And here's the bailout for news organizations, framed as allowing them to collectively bargain to collude against tech companies.

So that's university jobs and news media jobs...

I think the parent is a little off base. It's not ensuring the kids have sufficient income to support their lifestyle. Mommy and daddy could probably support them in upper middle class bobo comfort indefinitely. What is about is ensuring the outside and respect of those people and their positions. To ensure that being a "journalist" accords the level of prestige and unearned influence that being a "reporter" does not. To ensure that being and adjunct or NGO executive confers status and access that being a researcher or business executive does not. That's why Trump's open disrespect for these people and their unearned positions upset them so greatly.

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