site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   28350 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 28, 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.

10
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah, this foreign policy just seems straight up retarded. Actually the more I read about Vivek the less I seem to like him in terms of whether he will be good for the world. I still prefer him over most of the Republican field for symbolic status reasons of putting white racists in the "uncomfortable" position of having to vote either for a Democrat or a non white person in the general election. Same reason why I wouldn't mind Nikki Haley either, but it's a lot more on the nose with Vivek.

  • -12

Nearly all white racists would hold their nose and vote for Ramaswarthy without having to think twice about it. Anti-Hindu sentiment exists in the red tribe, but anti-democrats is a much bigger deal even for the people who hold it.

So to stick it to the racists, you want a candidate to succeed based on the color of his…skin?

Do you think Republicans dislike Clarence Thomas? Do you think they dislike Tim Scott (a man who really hasn’t done anything but is considered a super star for…reasons)?

Nah, not really. I've changedy mind on Vivek over the last few days when I actually got to read more about him and now I'm negative on him. Were I to have a real vote at this point I would not use it on him.

My post was just a bit of wishful thinking, an innocent daydreaming fantasy of seeing white racists go red in the face as they overload deciding whether they are going to vote for the brown man or vote for the white man who's policies they hate, and the despair they will feel when they realise that those two are the only real options available to them. I thought of it as a small microcosm, completely insulated from its impacts on the rest of the world (as all good fantasies are).

It's nothing important, we all have our fantasies, probably a good thing they don't come true.

"an Indian Republican? That will really make their heads explode"

Nothing happens

"Well, nevertheless"

The capacity of WNs to endure despair is probably far beyond what you can imagine, and the notion that they retain any kind of hope in the two party system is totally laughable.

How many white racists even are there who would identify Nikki Haley as non-white?

Her parents are named Ajit Singh and Raj Kaur. I don't think you get more Sikh than that.

She looks white. I don't think most Americans even know what a Sikh is.

To be fair, the (vanishingly few) hardcore wignats probably do. Same reasons they can provide a laundry list of which Hollywood stars have some drop of Jewish blood.

Her bigger problem is she has big ex wife energy

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