site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   30737 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.

I also, on principal and because I have many non-white friends and family members, abhor white nationalism and antisemitism.

This is like saying you abhor Zionism because you have non-Jewish friends. You have non-white friends, so you don't think white people should retain any ethnic identity or advocate for it in any way? How does that make sense? Do you deny any other ethnic group its ability to advocate for its own interests because you have friends outside that ethnic group? I have non-Chinese friends so I abhor Chinese nationalism I guess... Would that make sense to you, or does this sort of logic only apply for white people?

If your best friends are all average Muslim Palestinians and they find out you're a hardcore Zionist, they're very unlikely to remain your friends. If your friends are Korean and they find out you're a hardcore Japanese nationalist who rues the end of the occupation of Korea, they're very unlikely to remain your friends. If your friends are African Americans and they find out you're a wn and regular Occidental Observer commenter, it's relatively unlikely they'll remain so. The left are correct when they say that the personal is political and vice versa. If you care about your friends (which, one imagines, most people do), it's hard to advocate things that you know might hurt them in a significant way.

Rich Hollywood elites lined up to praise Parasite, German bourgeoisie was responsible for the success of Threepenny Opera. The people for whom they expressed disdain didn't seem to mind the animosity but instead sought and reveled in it.

Likewise ideologies which seeks to demonize the role ethnic Europeans as actors in history, could not have the prominence they enjoy, if they were only accepted by non-whites.

But you are correct: Palestinians, Koreans, African Americans are not like the two groups I mentioned, suggestions of alternate arrangements which would result in the diminishment of their status, cause them great offence.

This leads to: Why do some groups accept blame, mockery and disdain, but others do not?

Because those in the examples have a long cultural memory of victimhood in a way that white americans do not?

That seems kind of self serving. How well do you know American history? Most of America is not wealthy elite...

Who gets to decide who are the right kind of victims? You?

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