site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   28936 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 7, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Röbynn Europe

Nominal determinism strikes again.

Almost all (if not all) of her ex-boyfriends have been white men. In a 2011 interview with Vice, the interviewer notes...

Never ask a white nationalist or a social justice warrior the race of their partner, as they say.

I really don't even know what to say on the cases themselves. They're so absurd, so comically ridiculous to me that it's hard to articulate much other than a point and sputter. Likewise for the $1.8 billion awarded to potential teachers in NY that were victimized by their inability to pass a test. When you reward black incompetence and grifting, you're going to get more black incompetence and grifting.

Never ask a white nationalist or a social justice warrior the race of their partner, as they say.

It's the partner's cognitive dissonance that always astounds me.

Men being married to women who clearly despise them, or whites who listen to constant unhinged hateful rants from their black partner exist at a level of cowardice I find hard to fathom.

Men being married to women who clearly despise them

Do you think many (more than the average for monoracial couples) women in an interracial relationship despise their partner? It seems unlikely.

Actually no - it may be the opposite, actually. I've seen people hate their partner's race or gender, generally not both.

Never ask a white nationalist or a social justice warrior the race of their partner, as they say.

I think this can be genuine source of anxiety and cognitive dissonance. Imagine that you are somebody that fully believes in CRT - white privilege, oppression and all that. You want to have a kid - are you willing to have black spouse and thus knowingly sentence your child to lifetime of racism and oppression? Or will you go for white spouse so that at least your child can benefit from that juicy colorist privilege and potentially your grandchildren even passing white like this pretty little quadroon?

There is no "reverse racism" of anti-racism, there is only racism. This also works in other areas, James Lindsay calls it as "iron law of woke projection". The idea being that if you believe something let's say that the most important thing in society is power and how it manifests in oppression/oppressed dynamics, then of course you will be obsessed by obtaining said oppressive power and use it to do good presumably. In your eyes you improved the situation, in eyes of somebody who does not share your worldview, the situation changed from normal to open oppression in the name of ideology. So similarly as you can use antiracism to fight real [AKA systemic] racism, you can use fact checking using proper context to fight against misinformation, our side does not engage in censorship, we only deplatform racists who hold all the power and so forth. In the end it all degenerates, it basically conjures all the boogiemen as soon as narcissists and sociopaths get their hand on levers of power riding the wave of current culture - not unlike cult leaders riding the wave of whatever spiritual fad pervading the society.

Never ask a white nationalist or a social justice warrior the race of their partner, as they say.

It is a 2 way street.

A black/brown man would never tolerate the sheer vitriol the comes out of an angry SJW's mouth. Similarly, the only people who truly find a white supremacists skin to be 'superior' are poor people-of-color who find whiteness (and the American passport) to be a proxy for status.

That being said, we can totally infer some weird revealed preferences about the sexual fantasies of these kinds of people.

Sarah Jeong made such spicy anti-white-people tweets it caused some controversy for the New York Times hiring her. She's a pink-hair woke culture warrior going hard on white men.

Of course she only dates white men.

Never ask a white nationalist or a social justice warrior the race of their partner, as they say.

It is shocking how true this is. I wonder if there's actual data on it, you'd need a lot because confounding factors (eg. black social justice activists are probably around more white people than the average black american, maybe wignats are more likely to be around non-white women?) could explain it. But still, it's noticeable.

The base instinct underlying most modern white nationalist sentiment is a disgust towards the white liberal female archetype. Many Latina or Asian women (who aren’t already 2nd+ gen immigrants) actually don’t fit that archetype at all when it comes to their values and attitudes. So ironically in a cosmopolitan environment (full of recent immigrant women and the most insufferable type of white liberalism) it is easier for such men to date foreign women than the local white women.

WNs who date non-white women overwhelmingly date Asian women - who are treated implicitly (and, if my vision pans out, soon to be explicitly) as functionally white - or light-skinned Latinas, who are of mostly European descent anyway. Few if any WN men are dating black women or dark-skinned immigrants.

I know of several public examples who dated women from the Caucasus. At least in (Northern) Europe such people are not considered white by the far-right and even implicitly by the mainstream right. Richard Spencer's ex-wife is Georgian if memory serves and she looks the part.

There's also the British far-right streamer "The Ayatollah" who appropriately married an Iranian girl. And Jazzhand McFeels of the neo-Nazi TRS/NJP ecosystem married an Armenian girl. So apparently MENA is not off limits, alongside Asians.

I suspect blacks might be a bridge too far, but I wouldn't be surprised if people would overlook a black mistress. There's a lot of half-joking talk about "bleaching" non-white women in circles like this.

If they don't consider Arabs or Jews white, considering Filipinos white seems like a stretch.

The U.S. Census considered Filipinos Asian, which seems pretty sensible based the coarseness of the census categories.

maybe wignats are more likely to be around non-white women?

Or it's just the honorary Aryan thing. Richard Spencer iirc specifically singled out Asians as the WN forbidden fruit, I don't know that he'd feel the same about Guatemalans.

Wignats are often culturally conservative, or at least like to think of themselves that way. Asian and Latina women are often more culturally conservative, or at least more likely to be perceived of that way. This is probably the most charitable explanation for the observed behavior, but I kind of suspect that there's more than a little forbidden fruit preference going on.

Nominal determinism strikes again.

Now I want her to win the case on pure cosmic hilarity grounds. Imagine a woman named "Robbin' Europe" pilfering over $10 million from a bunch of whites because of some made up racial discrimination BS. This is so good that if this stands it's going to be one of my main examples of Nominative determinism alongside lawyer Sue Yu and that incontinence research paper by Splatt and Weedon.

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