site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   35190 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 New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm a reasonably good looking guy and I've told assorted leftist chicks my views pretty early. They seemed confused (I don't drive a pickup truck or anything they associated with bad trump voters) but it didn't stop most of them from banging me.

The trick is to not act like Ben Shapiro. The most I ever did was troll them for entertainment, e.g. "we should build a wall and make Brooklyn great again, keep the migrants seeking a better life out" in response to a comment about keeping out gentrifiers.

What are "your views" that you tell them? Would you be able to off-handedly mention if the topic comes up, "Yeah, I think Ben Shapiro is basically right" and also not act like Ben Shapiro?

Your comment about Brooklyn doesn't really strike me as "supports trump" or problematic on the object-level. The reason someone would get mad at that trolling is if she thinks gentrification is too sacred to be joked about. Most people don't feel that way, and if they do a little bit, they would probably swallow (haha) their mild discomfort as a form of settling.

Things I've admitted to thinking:

  • Trump seems pretty ok.

  • "I have sexdar. It's like gaydar, but I can predict pronouns with >99% accuracy!" Admittedly the trans thing was just starting but wasn't so crazy as it is now

  • Women aren't in tech cause they don't want to be.

  • Assorted environmental things

  • Poor people have it good in America and their problems are mostly self inflicted

  • I don't vote, no one should. (This was to a girl who was in some voting encouragement NGO.)

But again, I'm not arguing these points. I'm trolling, entertaining myself and exerting playful intellectual dominance. You can have a prediction contest, but the first bet involves the loser buying the next round of drinks and the second bet puts her at risk of losing clothing.

Would you be able to off-handedly mention if the topic comes up, "Yeah, I think Ben Shapiro is basically right" and also not act like Ben Shapiro?

"It's so sad, Ben Shapiro is 100% right on everything yet he'll never know the love of a woman." If you aren't saying it with a smirk, don't say it.

I also can't stress enough that an important part of the delivery is being >6'1", benching your bodyweight and having flat abs.

You're hot and rather than actually commit to opinions you joke about them and turn them into flirtatious teases. This works because you're hot and women want to fuck you, but it's not actually a sign of them accepting your beliefs; even you don't seem to accept them, as you note, you're trolling and playing rather than demonstrating any sincerity.

This works for one night stands and FWBs. If the sexual chemistry is good enough, might even work for a short relationship. I'd be surprised if it worked out for a long-term serious relationship.

Scrolling up, we're discussing this:

Incels have done enough chadfishing experiments to show that you can say or believe whatever you want so long as they are attracted to you

I don't know what you mean by "actually commit". I certainly don't try to use FACTS AND LOGIC to convert women to conservativism or into my bed.

I make no comment about whether this works on politics for long term relationships, though certainly building and maintaining attraction through flirtation has helped my long term relationships.

I think you get it, actually. You're not sharing sincere beliefs, you're telling jokes and dunking on people.

You're not sharing sincere beliefs, you're telling jokes and dunking on people.

You seem to believe these can't be done simultaneously.

No, almost none of this requires being especially attractive. "Trump seems pretty ok" is the riskiest one here, do you ever caveat it, or what's the context? I can easily get away with the rest of these.

I also would have predicted that the only way for you to call Ben Shapiro right would be to dunk on him. This is unsurprising, since most people ignore the literal and logical implications of words and go straight for the emotivism. If your claim is heard and understood as merely "Fuck Ben Shapiro" then it doesn't imply anything interesting about what you believe.

I mean actually, seriously, can you profess, "Graduating high school, getting a job, and avoiding kids out of wedlock is just how you win at life"? Because that implies certain beliefs about the agency of a person, for example, many people would say discrimination or other factors come into play regardless of doing those. Or, they'll say that discrimination or other factors prevent some people from doing those, and so Ben Shapiro is wrong insofar as his prescriptions are incomplete.

It sounds like what you're saying is, "if you're hot you can troll with inflammatory-sounding things that creatively shit on the right." I attest I do that regularly at progressive women, because it shows wit and intelligence (and a disdain for the right). So I doubt this really is an instance of the halo effect.

"Trump seems pretty ok" is the riskiest one here, do you ever caveat it, or what's the context?

One context I can remember was something about how I'm tired of hearing how evil candidate Trump is on every single TV at the gym. "But isn't he so evil?" "I dunno, he seems cool whenever they let him talk. What's evil?" "He's racist." "No he isn't, he's out there defending American Indians from white ladies like Pocahontas trying to steal their AA slots."

I also would have predicted that the only way for you to call Ben Shapiro right would be to dunk on him. This is unsurprising, since most people ignore the literal and logical implications of words and go straight for the emotivism. If your claim is heard and understood as merely "Fuck Ben Shapiro" then it doesn't imply anything interesting about what you believe.

I also believe "fuck Ben Shapiro". He's a wanker who creates a bad impression of conservatives by being a youtube version of internet nerds. He's right on the little bits I've seen him say, but also I haven't paid much attention cause he's annoying.

It sounds like what you're saying is, "if you're hot you can troll with inflammatory-sounding things that creatively shit on the right."

No, I shit on Ben Shapiro specifically because you asked about him specifically after I described him as a person not to emulate.

Most of the trolling I do (or did, less relevant now) is not negative about the right at all. It's more about highlighting the inconsistencies of the left.

I thought you meant "do not emulate Shapiro's style" which is what I took "act like Ben Shapiro" to mean. I asked about emulating Shapiro's position while not emulating his style and the only way to do that is emulate his position while denigrating him. I also do this, as a defense mechanism because there are consequences otherwise.

The bit about Pocahontas is riskier, and I'll give you more credit for that. If I was motivated to pick that apart too, I would say you seem to be capitalizing on "50 Stalins ambiguity." It feels like your trolls would just say things like, "Pride Month and Woke Race Representation is so annoying; companies are so insincere." Like the Pocahontas example that implicitly assumes AA and diversity is good, you attack the excess of the Left, but not really from a Rightist perspective.

These are all very safe positions, I say stuff like this because it does show intellectual dominance (was that an edit?).

I asked about emulating Shapiro's position while not emulating his style and the only way to do that is emulate his position while denigrating him.

Yes, in a conversation about a particular human, you need to express an opinion about that human. Yaying "yeah he's soooo smart did you see that youtube video where he proved Matt Yglesias is wrong" is not a panty peeler for liberal or conservative women.

I can defend a position that is likely aligned with him - in a humorous and trollish manner - without mentioning the specific person at all.

The bit about Pocahontas is riskier, and I'll give you more credit for that. If I was motivated to pick that apart too, I would say you seem to be capitalizing on "50 Stalins ambiguity."

...attack the excess of the Left, but not really from a Rightist perspective.

Stuff I do when I want to have sex: ambiguity, mystery, trollish playfulness.

Stuff I'd do when I want to masturbate and then cry myself to sleep out of loneliness: attack her opinions WITH FACTS AND LOGIC.

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