site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   31422 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 New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How will you cleanse your hands of blood?

If there is no god, and we replaced him, there is no cleansing anything. We're in charge. We are so terribly free.

The point of god is to be the final judge of man, to decide between life and death. Women are life, men are death.

In this scenario, it is the role of men to take up the mantle of god in nature and control what lives and what dies.

The blood on god's hands goes all the way up to the collarbone.

Only one choice, judge or be judged.

Only one outcome, in the long run.

We serve death, and become him.

Like our forefathers before us.

How black exactly do you want your pills?

Dillard says that evolution loves death more than it loves you or me.

She was so close. The sky is blue, and God loves the infantry.

What are your thoughts on the Hock?

If there is no god, and we replaced him, there is no cleansing anything. We're in charge. We are so terribly free.

The point of god is to be the final judge of man, to decide between life and death. Women are life, men are death.

Yes Nietschze argues that, I don't. We aren't in charge. The reason we can even exist with billions of men competing in a similar status hierarchy without killing each other is due to religion. Sure, we killed the outright belief in God, but the very nature of God means that He can never be truly killed.

The point of God is to be the final judge of humans. He decides between life and death. He is the bridge between the red society we inhabit, and the beautiful future society we can become. He's never truly dead unless we give up on the hope that the future can be better than the present.

Or we just make our own judgements and swing the blade with our own hands.

No gods, no masters. Just men.

So you're proposing we worship the individual over the collective?

Not in the least. There is nothing to worship. We are not even individuals. We are the temporary combinations of two bloodlines, struggling to reproduce our genetics into the next generation.

Women choose who reproduces, men choose who doesn't.

We are not even individuals.

If not us, who is? If no one is, then what is the use of not defining whatever we are as individuals?

Semantics. I just don't think we are distinct from our physical bodies, nor our genetic heritage. We inherit much of what we are, and thus are not really distinct from the line of our ancestors, or our offspring.

Damn son. That's the blackpill right there.

The elephant in the room is that worship of anything else, like the State or the Volk, has been taboo since the Allies won the war.

I mean, fair point.

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