site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   31379 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.

This is a nonsense question, communists do not believe coercion is immoral.

But I fail to see how this is relevant to my position. I'm merely exiting from society. Are you saying I deserve blame because I intend to create a society you disapprove of once this one is done for?

Am I, the individual, unfairly restricting the will of the State by having thoughts and desires that go against its will? Is mere dissent a moral crime? Well tough shit, I'm not a fascist.

If fellow serfists came to power and reinstated serfdom by force, what would you do?

Do you equally take responsibility for all the impositions of the system you're currently defending?

I mean sure. If reactionaries or communists tried to take power, the bullets are on me. This is the point where discussion ends and my support of modernity, democracy, etc, gets a little more concrete. And even in peacetime, I take responsibility for the blood on the hands of the government I support.

And even in peacetime, I take responsibility for the blood on the hands of the government I support.

Based on my understanding of the amount and nature of that blood, I would not willingly do that, but I suppose we all must stand by our convictions.

For the record I don't believe serfdom is morally justified because it subverts competition between rulers. I believe in exit rights after all. All I'm saying is that those people lived generally more free and human lives than we do today. Not that their system was perfect or something I literally advocate for.

That said, since we want to play cards on the table, I am indeed in favor of a new feudalism. So if people do manage to make patchwork a reality for some or most of the world I'll rejoice. I don't see why I shouldn't or how that's hypocritical however.

It's not like people are stealing land to make it happen, most of the current projects I'm following are both completely voluntary and paying for whatever land they want to occupy in the first place. That's more ethical compliance than most historical homesteaders ever had.

I'm sure any actual world order would have to concede some of those principles on the altar of practicality, as they always do, I'm not naive. But I see no reason to prefer the rules based order over the concert of nations. So I don't.

That’s great, but I also have no problem with marxists if they want to try a commune where they pool resources and acquire means of production. If you think you’re going to re-build feudalism without coercion, good luck to you.

All I'm saying is that those people lived generally more free and human lives than we do today.

And I still haven’t seen a single point supporting that. We’re arguing against a vague feeling of unease.

Best I've seen is people who convert existing farming structures, and that runs you at least some years of labor to buy the land.

Which land? Do you think the serfs owned the land they farmed? Few months salary should suffice for a decrepit building and the land it sits on.

You'll have to forgive me, I don't see our 80 days a year of mandated holy rest from here.

With the sundays, saturdays, and holidays, the average modern man has, what, 130 days of rest a year? And you can rest for well over 300 days if you're willing to settle for merely vastly superior comfort to what peasants had. And on these holy rest days, you are not forced to attend mass in the morning under the scrutiny of the mob.

But that one's not really a contest, the serf doesn't have a black rectangle in his pocket that tells everybody where he is and allows them to summon him at all times.

This isn't obligatory, you know. Like, just turn it off.

Outside of perpetually insane places, such as Russia, conscription has been viewed as abominable throughout the middle ages and a clear act of tyranny.

Very convenient for your argument to take out the central example of serfdom. I didn't see this 'perpetually insane' label when you were defending the country's perspective in the current war.

If you think you’re going to re-build feudalism without coercion, good luck to you.

I mean I don't really need to do that since it never ended in the first place, I can just go to the UAE or Morocco. But I think the anglo-norman form had some inherent qualities with respect to freedom that are valuable to a more technological (if human) future version.

I still haven’t seen a single point supporting that

I've listed specific things that make life worse. You just don't agree that they do. Call my tax bill and lack of privacy a vague sense of unease if you want, I don't think it's vague at all. Which is why I believe what I believe in the first place.

Do you think the serfs owned the land they farmed?

I know some did because it's a well documented fact. Cottagers didn't but the main difference between serfdom and slavery was precisely the ability to own property in general and land in particular.

Of course the land they were tied to they specifically didn't own, but that's besides the point.

Few months salary should suffice for a decrepit building and the land it sits on.

Are you, by any chance, American? If you're not when's the last time you bought any land? Because those numbers aren't what I'm seeing on the market today.

the average modern man has, what, 130 days of rest a year?

So now we're just going to compare apples and oranges?

I mean to your credit, how much exact amount of leisure medieval peasants actually had is a somewhat contentious topic but I don't think my assessment is one that is unpopular among historians.

This isn't obligatory, you know. Like, just turn it off.

Right, and that's why even my grandmother who hates those things had to buy one. Because it's optional.

There's really no such thing as optional technology in industrial society. But that's another tangent.

I didn't see this 'perpetually insane' label when you were defending the country's perspective in the current war.

You mustn't have read very much of my defenses then. I've argued at length that this conflict is in large part built on a big cultural misunderstanding where westerners try to apply their sense of civilization to people who've never lived under anything but autocrats and are probably geographically unable to support anything else.

Don't get me wrong, I do like Russians, but they're so far from my conception of civilization that yes, insanity is an appropriate term.

And yeah I do find the idea that you'd try to use them as a central example of medieval Europe to be objectionable, because they definitely are not.

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