site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   26781 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 20, 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.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Business/companies-starbucks-mcdonalds-face-controversy-amid-israel-hamas/story?id=104219615

Starbucks sued its union, Starbucks Workers United, earlier this month after the labor organization posted a since-deleted message on X, formerly known as Twitter, expressing solidarity with Palestinians. The message from the union triggered calls to boycott Starbucks, when some appeared to mistake the union's position for that of the company.

At McDonald's, an Israel-based franchise announced free food for members of the Israeli military, prompting a consumer backlash and messages from other franchises distancing themselves from the move.

Meanwhile, https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/11/14/indonesians-boycott-mcdonalds-starbucks-over-support-for-israel

Indonesians began boycotting McDonald’s and other businesses in mid-October after McDonald’s Israel announced on social media that it had handed out thousands of free meals to the Israeli military amid its war with Hamas.

The boycott comes despite McDonald’s Indonesia, which is owned by PT Rekso Nasional Food, last week announcing that it had “deployed humanitarian assistance valued at IDR [Indonesian rupiahs] 1,5 billion [$96,000]” to support Palestinians.

While McDonald’s is synonymous with the United States, most of its restaurants worldwide are locally owned, and franchisees in numerous Muslim countries have expressed support for Palestinians and pledged money to support relief efforts in Gaza.

So, the Starbucks union posted pro-Palestinian messages on social media, as is their right to do. Starbucks in response distances itself from its union — not even to support Israel, but simply to stay out of it altogether. McDonald’s franchises are independently owned and operated, so McDonald’s in Israel gives free food to the IDF, and McDonald’s in Indonesia and other Muslim countries gives aid to Palestine instead.

And for just doing business as businesses do, https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/propalestine-vandals-who-targeted-starbucks-and-maccas-in-melbourne-dubbed-extremists/news-story/6f6c50b4316aa4426b90702d5ccf1c91?amp

Protesters who vandalised Starbucks and McDonald’s stores in Melbourne during a large pro-Palestine demonstration have been described as “homegrown extremists”.

A Starbucks cafe on Swanston Street in the CBD was covered in stickers and sprayed with red paint yesterday, targeted for the third time in as many weeks.

I mean, I could at least see the Chick-fil-A boycott making sense. You eating at Chick-fil-A benefits the CEO and private owner of the company, so you want to stop giving money to that guy even if that might end up hurting others employed by Chick-fil-A who don’t share such views.

Or the Hogwarts Legacy boycott, where an argument could be made that even pirating the game gives cultural clout to the Harry Potter brand, and therefore you should avoid the game altogether if you dislike JK Rowling enough. I mean, I disagree, but I can at least see where that is coming from. You don’t want to benefit people you dislike, even if it also benefits others who you have nothing against at all.

This, though? This isn’t even hurting “the right people.” What? Am I missing a potential steel man here, or are these protestors not even bothering to pretend like what they’re doing has any rational basis beyond pure tribalism anymore?

Am I missing a potential steel man here,

If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. All of the franchises share a reputation for taste, service, cleanliness, etc, and they also share a reputation for supporting political groups. Don't like being lumped in with activist franchises? Get the HQ to cancel their agreement and maintain stricter message discipline.

Doesn't help in the Starbucks union case

I think it works better for a corporation and its union than for a pair of franchises.

If a consumer wanted to display their displeasure at the actions of a certain union, what could they do? They could write strongly-worded letters, protest in the streets...or take their business elsewhere. Yes, there is a nominally adversarial relationship between the corporation and the union, but their interests are so strongly intertwined that hurting one almost inevitably hurts the other.

Buying a Toyota to stick it to the UAW is valid, and boycotting Starbucks to stick it to their union is valid as well.

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