site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   29907 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 27, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sure, I feel a vague annoyance when the BBC goes and portrays medieval London as just as "diverse" as modern London but then I feel annoyed when King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table (who allegedly lived in the 7th or 8th century) are portrayed as wearing over-polished 16th century jousting armor and kind of resent the fact that the filmmakers changed the antagonist ship in Master and Commander from American to French. Thing is that I also recognize that I'm the outlier for caring about this shit. Everyone else's attitude could be summed up by saying; London is London, Knights in shining armor are Knights in shining armor, and who cares who exactly is eating grapeshot so long as Britania rules the waves?

Britania rules the waves? Where?

This paragraph made me imagine a version of 1984 written by Hlynka.

In 1984, the Hlynka version of Winston decides that who cares if the party falsifies history, and ignores it. He doesn't love Big Brother but doesn't care to oppose him. More than merely ignoring it, he even spends time opposing those who suspiciously care too much. It seems suspicious when Oceania rules the waves and there is in fact the threat of Eastasia that people waste time about some falsification of history here and there.

Seems to me that Winston might try to hide it, but he likes Big Brother after all. Maybe this is the version of 1984 that Hillary Clinton read: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/14/hillary-clinton-lesson-1984-trust-leaders-press/

Britania rules the waves? Where?

You mean when, and the answer is "for about 300 years from the late 17th century through to early-mid 20th" and for this reason they also rule the waves in pop culture. The Pirates of the Caribbean don't live in fear of the Spanish, French, or USA, they live in fear of the British Empire and more specifically the Royal Navy.

In 1984, the Hlynka version of Winston decides that who cares if the party falsifies history, and ignores it...

Au contraire, the HlynkaCG version of 1984 is basically just Office Space. Rather than being horrified by the proles' lack of concern for political/corporate matters Winston/Peter embraces it, abandons any pretense of being a good-little party member/employee, finds himself a cuddly wife, and lives a vastly happier life for it.

Edit: formatting

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