site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   33302 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 24, 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.

They are, and don't do much veiling. Their logo is literally a fasces copied from Mussolini's original fascist party logo with the same distinctive orientation and blade type, and leaks show they reject applicants whose idea of American nationalism is based on adherence to cultural/ideological positions rather than based on someone's racial ancestry.

In another revealing question, interviewees were asked whether they subscribed to the “civnat” or “civic nationalist” position. Civic nationalism is a form of nationalism that is based in classical liberalism, and couples a virulent nationalism with some level of ethnic inclusivity—positing that a nation is composed of all those who adhere to its constitution or founding principles. All interviewees who were accepted expressed their opposition to this ideology, typically stating that “there is an ethnic component to being an American” and that “nationhood cannot be bestowed to those not of the founding stock.”

One interviewee, who was rejected for membership, said that he “isn’t comfortable judging an entire culture. Is more comfortable with Japanese migrants than Cuban migrants. Thinks that an ethnostate may not be achievable, unless everyone gets really tired. It isn’t the hill he’d die on.” Although this response may be considered racist by mainstream standards, for Patriot Front interviewers it indicated an excessive level of flexibility around ethnicity. Incorrect responses to this question appear to be the most common reason interviewees were rejected (although interviewees were also rejected after being deemed “obese” and “gay” by group leaders).

When they recently attempted to crash a MAGA rally they got their asses kicked by the attendees. Not a particularly popular bunch even among the demographic they're trying to target for recruiting and persuasion.

Having read that link, I’m not impressed by the quality of the research here. It’s a bunch of statements by random, unidentified people, none of the details being double checked, no person has attempted to contact the group under cover to see if any of these random stories check out, or if the people they’re using as witnesses were actually trying to get into the group. HI12345 might be a real recruit. Or he might be someone pretending to have been a real recruit. It’s not clear.

When they recently attempted to crash a MAGA rally they got their asses kicked by the attendees. Not a particularly popular bunch even among the demographic they're trying to target for recruiting and persuasion.

Well, that's not Patriot Front in that video...

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