site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32245 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.

I think it’s again about social class, not wealth, so a person socialized into the upper class would have those values. I do question the sincerity of them really being willing to hand their money over to those rednecks in the south, or other groups they find odious. But as a group, they see welfare states as good things to be in favor of alongside universal health care and free college.

I mean the governments welfare programs often do go to those rednecks in the south and there’s little protest from blue tribers.

often do go to those rednecks in the south

Doth protest too much, or just generally confused about the facts on the ground in the south? The south has lots of poverty, primarily, because it houses more black Americans per capita.

It’s true that very high black populations make several southern states look worse than they really are on everything except military recruitment and diversity, but southern states with more nationally typical racial mixes(such as Oklahoma and West Virginia) still have elevated poverty rates, albeit not Mississippi’s. There are lots of dysfunctional poor whites, you just don’t see them because they live in rural areas.

West Virginia and Oklahoma is a very expansive definition of "the south" IMO.

Poor whites certainly exist, but their dysfunctions are, yes, largely contained to rural areas, and often in those areas you can be well below the poverty line and not really be doing anything wrong. There is just no wealth anywhere around you, so you are subsistence living, because that is all that is available. A poor person in a city is simply squandering every possible advantage.

Yes, they are, but it’s the closest match to ‘the south without the large black populations’. And in any case blacks out of the south seem to do better than blacks in the south, so there’s a factor of ‘southern-mess’ distinct from just ‘lots of blacks’.

The South used to be substantially poorer. That is why blacks moved north: To sop up the opportunities and spillover prosperity of a bigger economy. The South is catching up right now because it has better economic policy, generally, than many of the ossified northern states. But largely still hasn't, and even when/if it does, having a large black % will still make it harder to provide jobs and benefits to that many low skill workers and expensive to police that many criminally inclined persons.

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