site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   27399 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 25, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

lighthearted cs drama

The grace hopper conference is supposed to be for women and gender minorities. Since they have recruiters there, the job market is tight, and there's no explicit policy against men showing up, men have been showing up. It looks like a lot of people are unhappy about this. The csmajors sub banned discussion of it, but there are still plenty of juicy threads up; in addition to the gender wars, a lot of the guys being international students adds a 'they're taking our jobs' flair to the fire. Since it's basically impossible to gatekeep nonbinary-ness, the challenge for the organizers, if they choose to accept it, is to weed out the men without being accused of being TERFs.

the challenge for the organizers, if they choose to accept it, is to weed out the men without being accused of being TERFs.

They won’t accept it. They’ll trumpet their inclusion of diverse gender identities if it comes to that.

To the point of letting an obvious troll in? If Catgirl Kulak tries to get in, I don’t believe the inclusivity will last.

Obvious trolls/bad actors have been exploiting the various Anglosphere policies on trans women in prisons and sports for years with little to no pushback from the TRAs themselves. I'd be surprised if a tech conference proves to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, although I suppose stranger things have happened. "Academic politics are the most bitter because the stakes are so low" and all that.

”Academic politics are the most bitter because the stakes are so low” and all that.

How did this meme ever catch on? It’s obviously false.

People die over “real” politics. People go to prison, lives are ruined. The same cannot be said of academic politics, for the most part.

I think that ruthlessness and venom are two quite different things. Often they’re related, but not always. Imagine two soldiers who have a professional respect for each other but nevertheless kill (again, far from universal, but not uncommon) vs somebody who writes a bad review of your paper and makes it clear at every opportunity that they consider you vermin.

It seems to be harder than it used to be to play the game (whatever it is) to win without getting your feelings mixed up in things. That might just be historical distance though.

Issa joke

I've heard an Afghanistan war veteran say he'd rather deal with the Taliban, than with progressives engaging in petty politics back home. The former might kill you, but reportedly are nowhere near as vicious.

Sounds like the premise for a sappy movie. Local Farmboy Returns From War to find his hometown irrevocably…woke.

Reminds me of the Battle of Athens, America's own Scouring of the Shire.

Nah, Demolition Man already did it.

Maybe you’re right.

My reasoning is that the people clamoring to kick men from this conference are the ones who would be directly affected by trolls and bad actors. This isn’t the case for separate populations like prisoners and athletes. It is much easier to err on the side of credulity when it’s someone else at risk.

I’m pretty sure rule 0 at this event, like most others of its kind, is ‘you’re cancelled for offending anyone who doesn’t claim to be male’, which an obvious troll would do quite quickly. They might declare that him saying hi to a woman in an elevator is sexual assault or something, but uberwoke events have historically been quite good at expelling ridiculous trolls(often for even more ridiculous reasons).

Does the lady in the elevator make a complaint, and then people who've never met her line up on her side to enforce that complaint?

Or does the lady in the elevator make a complaint, and then her friends and allies megaphone that complaint to the entire community, in and outside, creating the impression of both internal consensus and external judgement, cementing a narrative through mass propaganda?

...Who can say in a hypothetical? It seems to me that the real-world cases I've observed have resembled the latter more than the former, though. That is to say, you're talking about a fundamentally nepotistic/tribal social process, and what makes it work isn't any sort of formal rules structure, but rather the social machine the attackers have built. If this is correct, then trolls are unlikely to have that sort of structure ready to go. They run in and try to troll, and the tight-knit activist types simply shut them down.

Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. Matt Walsh showing up to this thing will just get railroaded out by activists, and our own kulak revolt will get railroaded out rather more quickly.

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