site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   35245 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 19, 2022

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.

33
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think you are weakmanning my argument by boiling it down to "just because worse things exist doesn't mean my complaints are invalid".

My argument is basically if OP has enough mental energy to worry about "how his descendants will look like 200 years later", I can just about guarantee you OP isn't worrying about his descendants enough right now in the present.

Unless OP's life is that good that he doesn't have to worry about his kids but his kids;kids;kids.

Edit - OP is falling into the midwit trap. Which is dispensing simple wisdom for overly complicated theory.

low iq - "Just live a good life yourself ,man"

midwit - "The demographic trends now show that within n years, the expected gdp/capita is going to be y"

high iq - "Just live a good life yourself, man. Culture is created bottom up from the individual. Don't lament that which is outside your control and outside your understanding. If everyone seriously aims to live a good life himself, society will be good. Live in a way that inspires your community and kids to follow, and culture will create itself, and your kids will perpetuate and spread it. "

I'm arguing for strength not weakness, in the face of adversity.

The "low IQ midwit high IQ" meme is awfully midwit itself. Your supposedly "high IQ" viewpoint is just a platitude that implies third world countries suck because the population just doesn't try hard enough to live well. The meme format isn't a good argument, it's just an attempt to say "well some imaginary super geniuses agree with me, so it's okay that my viewpoint seems to be wrong!"

These "imaginary supergeniuses" I'm invoking are the same people who built the culture OP laments the loss of.

My proposal will help with OP's current psyche and actually contributes a moonshot chance alleviating OP's fears. What is your proposal? Is it lost on everyone that the ideology most damaging to the west (wokism) is perpetuated by mostly... white people?

I'm telling OP to fight the enemy within. Metaphorically and literally.

No, you are telling him to bury his head in the sand. The people who built the culture OP laments the loss of were comically racist compared to almost every modern Westerner, and did not even allow non-whites to naturalize instead of throwing open the floodgates.

In an all-white America, the Republican candidate would have won every Presidential election since 1964. Anti-white politics, obviously, would be substantially attenuated in a more white country. Some whites being successful anti-whites doesn't make a difference.

The people who built the culture OP laments the loss of were comically racist compared to almost every modern Westerner, and did not even allow non-whites to naturalize instead of throwing open the floodgates.

Everyone was comically racist during those times. You are committing the non central fallacy. Saying as if the racism had anything to do with the greatness of the culture they created.

You know who else is comically racist? Just about every civilization/culture ever. The Arabs, The Turks, The Chinese, The Aztecs.

That's just noise in the signal.

In an all-white America, the Republican candidate would have won every Presidential election since 1964. Anti-white politics, obviously, would be substantially attenuated in a more white country. Some whites being successful anti-whites doesn't make a difference.

And ?

Why are Republicans the benchmark? The median Republican is much closer to the median democrat than you, fyi.

No, you are telling him to bury his head in the sand.

Ok, what should OP do? I'm yet to see you propose a solution.

I'm committing no such fallacy. You are the one arguing the "builders of OP's culture" would have ignored demographics, when in fact the "builders of OP's culture" worked hard to destroy foreign cultures and bar outsiders from entry.

It's a benchmark because Republican politicians are very obviously less anti-white than Democratic politicians.

I'm committing no such fallacy. You are the one arguing the "builders of OP's culture" would have ignored demographics, when in fact the "builders of OP's culture" worked hard to destroy foreign cultures and bar outsiders from entry.

And how does this relate to the good culture? Every culture did this.

Until you can tell me why them doing it was good but other cultures doing it was also not good, it is a non central fallacy. It's not unique to whites.

Anti-white politics, obviously, would be substantially attenuated in a more white country.

  1. Whites are the most anti-white people. The battle is cultural, not political. People become anti white because they read about it on twitter not because they follow vote democrat, most people don't vote.

  2. If not being anti white is the only concern in the world, then sure. But republicans do plenty of things that makes the founding fathers turn in their graves, like printing gazillions of dollars. Or starting wars and losing trillions.

R vs D are irrelevant to this conversation, they are both largely dogshit. So back to;

Ok, what should OP do? I'm yet to see you propose a solution.

Let's say with republicans around in your counter factual world, there is no anti white rhetoric, but the culture that remains is a shadow of its past self. Is that preferable to you?

Or am I correct in my proposal that its culture that needs to be preserved and created at the individual level?

And how does this relate to the good culture? Every culture did this.

Until you can tell me why them doing it was good but other cultures doing it was also not good, it is a non central fallacy. It's not unique to whites.

That makes it even more ridiculous that you are recommending him to not do the thing that every culture ever has done based on the argument that "culture builders would have done this."

That makes it even more ridiculous that you are recommending him to not do the thing that every culture ever has done based on the argument that "culture builders would have done this."

On the contrary, @f3zinker is recommending that he do the thing that every culture ever has done has has done to perpetuate itself. Stop worrying about stupid bullshit and instead worry about making babies and making sure those babies live long enough to make babies of their own.

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