site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   25659 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Persecution of the Internet Historian

Internet Historian is a popular YouTuber whose best content is retelling interesting, fairly obscure stories with janky animation and luscious voice over. He’s an excellent storyteller and the videos are insanely easy to watch.

Left wing breadtuber Hbomberguy recently released an almost 4 hour video about plagiarism on YouTube. One of the subjects of the video was Internet Historian, and I think Hbomberguy credibly shows that IH was in the wrong. For his most watched video, Man in Hole, IH heavily copied the story and format of a Mental Floss article, as well as directly quoting entire paragraphs. IIRC, IH did cite the Mental Floss article in the original video, but it would be fairer to say that the entire video was an animated telling of the original article, and IH should have described it as such.

Furthermore, after Man in Hole was DMCAed, IH seemingly purposefully concealed what he had done, made excuses, and never fully acknowledged the extent to which he plagiarized, even after reuploading the video with heavy edits.

I think IH did a bad thing by committing plagiarism. Then he did another bad thing by trying to cover it up. I don’t think his life should be destroyed, but I think he deserves some score for this and my opinion of him has been lowered.

But if you ask some very online leftist people what’s wrong with IH, they won’t say plagiarism, they will say he is a literal Nazi - https://old.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/18dotzf/internet_historian_is_a_nazi/

That thread is by far the most popular ever on that subreddit, and lists evidence that IH is a Nazi. I’d summarize the evidence as “IH has a 4-chany sense of humor, has made some edgy jokes, and follows mainstream conservatives on Twitter.”

What I find most interesting about this affair is how difficult to convey to the breadtubey online leftists how vapid and dumb I think this evidence is. I think that’s because there’s actually a lot of cultural complexity here tied into some big gaps in moral intuition.

For instance, many of the evidence points are that IH has made jokes in his videos about Nazis and the KKK. In one video, he put 14/88 in the background, in another he uses a KKK caricature, and he has also sarcastically listed his birthday as 4/20 (Hitler’s birthday, though this might also just be a weed lmao thing). To the OP and most of the commenters, this is strong evidence that IH is a literal Nazi. Even if they acknowledge that these are edgy jokes, they can’t comprehend why someone would make light of something so awful unless they were secretly sympathetic to it. Or they just say that IH is straight up “dogwhistling” to align himself with all the Nazis watching his videos.

These arguments strike me as so divorced from reality that it’s difficult to bridge the gap. These jokes are not actually making light of Hitler, Nazis, and the KKK. They are making light of online lefties being pathologically obsessed with speech. Referencing Hitler isn’t funny; what’s funny is watching online lefties think that referencing Hitler indicates a deep seated hatred of Judaism and a real desire to exterminate non-whites. It’s the overreaction that’s funny. Or another way to put it – edgy Hitler jokes are shibboleths indicating that the speaker doesn’t buy into the predominant lefty internet culture. The speaker signals that he has such little concern for the culture that he considers stifling, censorious, and ridiculous, that he invokes the greatest taboo possible. IMO, this is the essence of edgy 4-chan humor.

Is this an accurate take? Or am I being too nice to IH?

That thread is by far the most popular ever on that subreddit, and lists evidence that IH is a Nazi. I’d summarize the evidence as “IH has a 4-chany sense of humor, has made some edgy jokes, and **follows mainstream conservatives on Twitter.**”

The issue with the bolded part is that that's not a defense. In particular, the ones they cite are Libs Of Tik Tok, Gavin McInnes, and Ron Desantis. You could maybe excuse Desantis, but you still have to grapple with the question of whether mainstream conservatism itself moved in the direction of Nazism in recent years, which is probably something IH's accusers don't have any issue believing. They might be wrong, but it's not a trivially dismissed point of evidence.

For instance, many of the evidence points are that IH has made jokes in his videos about Nazis and the KKK. In one video, he put 14/88 in the background

You're improperly summarizing the actual point that post made - The game being referenced where he put "14/88" in doesn't allow values for that field if they aren't divisible by 5. He had to choose that number.

These arguments strike me as so divorced from reality that it’s difficult to bridge the gap. These jokes are not actually making light of Hitler, Nazis, and the KKK.

This is a valid defense, but it's impossible to prove just from IH's actions where he actually stands on the topic, and so you can't tell he's saying these things to just mock the left or he's doing it because he's inserting what he actually thinks as jokes. It's not an unheard of strategy - Nick Fuentes has a clip of him saying that humor was a way to promote his brand of politics and that he couldn't obviously be forthcoming about what he actually believed.

I've watch IH's videos, including the ones mentioned in the post you linked. The Bike-lock professor one was straight up "4chan does good thing by catching attacker" and mocks neopronouns at the beginning of the video. Which part of this is mocking the lefties?

Ultimately, IH needs to cease his policy of silence and be forthcoming - both about the plagiarizing and where his actual politics stand. That's inherently the burden you take on when you aren't in the Overton Window. That applies to literally anything a person does.

  • -13

The issue with the bolded part is that that's not a defense. In particular, the ones they cite are Libs Of Tik Tok, Gavin McInnes, and Ron Desantis.

Gavin McInnes is the only one alt-right of those three, and even that's debatable.

You could maybe excuse Desantis, but you still have to grapple with the question of whether mainstream conservatism itself moved in the direction of Nazism in recent years, which is probably something IH's accusers don't have any issue believing. They might be wrong, but it's not a trivially dismissed point of evidence.

Umm, following Desantis and Libs of Tiktok in particular doesn't necessarily mean that a body supports them, though, does it? It seems to me that if you were making a list of top 100 accounts to follow to keep ahead of current controversies, those two would be on it. And Mcinnes seems in the general wheelhouse if not quite as notable.

I looked at the IH's followers, but I can't see the whole list (746 total, but I only see about 50). I was going to argue that he doesn't seem to be following politics accounts in general or whatever and so it might be more informative that he follows people like DeSantis, LoTT, McInnes, etc. But I can't see all his follows, so I can't say for sure.

I'm fine with the idea that he might be following just to see what they say, but if the sampling I got from the "follows" tab for him were accurate, it's like 90% various e-celebs (on the Youtube/Twitch space) and some conservative figures. I don't think it's unrealistic to imagine he follows because he's at least partially attuned to the message.

You could maybe excuse Desantis

The idea that someone needs an excuse to follow a popular Republican governor and presidental candidate is absurd.

What kind of statement would you like "I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the nazi party"? I'm not defending the plagiarism, but this is ideological witch-hunting. Does every reference to che guevara have to result in a groveling apology for the crimes of communism?

I don’t know why he bothered with the edgy jokes and dogswhistles. He should have simply called for the genocide of jews, then the presidents of harvard and co would find his behaviour compatible with a strongly inclusive code of conduct.

No, just a statement about what he actually thinks would be enough for me. I'm not on the anti-IH train.

Does every reference to che guevara have to result in a groveling apology for the crimes of communism?

If you insert sneaky references to Che and make videos portraying him in a positive light, then yeah, people are going to think you support Che. The "it's just a joke" thing is a valid defense if you actually explain your position as not defending him or just sticking it to the Che haters, otherwise you're remaining in ambiguity and might suffer some consequences if anti-Che sentiment becomes so powerful that they start demanding people be socially ostracized for any perceived defense of Che.

Is it good? Probably not. Is there a clear way out? Yes.

I don’t know why he bothered with the edgy jokes and dogswhistles. He should have simply called for the genocide of jews, then the presidents of harvard and co would find his behaviour compatible with a strongly inclusive code of conduct.

Can you indicate to me a prior instance in which a Harvard student was punished for stating "death to all (insert progressive-favored group here}" to no one in particular?

otherwise you're remaining in ambiguity and might suffer some consequences if anti-Che sentiment becomes so powerful that they start demanding people be socially ostracized for any perceived defense of Che.

Answering legitimizes the witch-hunt. Their goal is not to discuss, but to silence. Their language is that of power. That behaviour is incompatible with a free and open society.

Can you indicate to me a prior instance in which a Harvard student was punished for stating "death to all (insert progressive-favored group here}" to no one in particular?

What? Professors have to write DEI statements (also known as “I love pocs” statements) as part of the application process. Mere indifference towards protected classes, not murderous intent, is disqualifying, insufficiently inclusive.

This fire article has a few examples of the free speech atmosphere at harvard, notably a student whose acceptance was revoked over comments he made on social media as a 16-year-old, which contained racial slurs.

Or for Penn:

In January 2022, Penn Law Professor Amy Wax came under public criticism for an interview in which she said the United States would be “better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration.” Penn Law Dean Theodore Ruger issued a report asking Penn’s faculty senate to impose a “major sanction” against Wax — up to and including termination — for her extramural speech.

I can't find calls for genocide because conservatives already get banned for expressing any antagonism at all. But if you have examples of calls for the genocide of protected classes that went unpunished, I'm all ears.

Answering legitimizes the witch-hunt. Their goal is not to discuss, but to silence. Their language is that of power. That behaviour is incompatible with a free and open society.

As I said elsewhere, the existence of bad actors shouldn't be a justification to avoid responding.

This fire article has a few examples of the free speech atmosphere at harvard, notably a student whose acceptance was revoked over comments he made on social media as a 16-year-old, which contained racial slurs.

That's not what I asked for. I explicitly said "student", not "acceptee". The reason I was specific here is that I'm aware of this case, but I don't see why it compares. I don't see a reason why the body of students should necessarily be held to exactly the same standard as the body of those who would be joining the school eventually. Maybe there's a good argument for it, but I'm not aware of one.

Ultimately, IH needs to cease his policy of silence and be forthcoming

I don't believe that you believe that.

Originally I wrote that this is like demanding that progressives cease their policy of silence about grooming, but even setting aside accusations of hypocrisy, how, given everything we've seen over the years, can you say that? Even if he becomes "forthcoming" and declares his political beliefs, and it turns out that (surprise, surprise) they're not anywhere near Nazi, how will that help? If he says he's conservative, he'll still be a Nazi in the eyes of the people you're defending. If he says he's a liberal who doesn't like the woke, he'll still be a Nazi. If he says he's an outright Leftist, who doesn't like the woke, he'll still be a Nazi.

I've seen all of these variations happening to all sorts of people. I've never seen the progressive mob back down when someone explained their beliefs in good faith. You've been here long enough that you should know that, and I feel like if you're putting this argument forward in good faith, you should pre-emptively bring evidence for how this step could result in anything good-to-neutral for IH.

You cannot use the existence of bad actors to hand-wave away the need for good or proper behavior. There are people who will never see socialism in a good light or give it a fair hearing, that doesn't absolve any good-faith socialist from being truthful and honest in their argumentation.

You cannot use the existence of bad actors to hand-wave away the need for good or proper behavior.

So if someone is accused of believing in something, they are duty bound to be open and forthcoming about what their political beliefs actually are, regardless of how flimsy the evidence presented that they believe in it?

Hard not to see this as just a more elaborate form of "have you stopped beating your wife?" If you hear IH jokingly stating that his birthday is 4/20 and your brain immediately goes to "Hitler's birthday" and not "dude weed lmao", I'm going to assume you see the face of Jesus Christ in the last piece of toast you ate too.

Check out how uncharitable one can be:

@drmanhattan16, your username is a reference to the character Jon Osterman (a.k.a Dr. Manhattan) from the 1986 comic book Watchmen. During the story of this comic, 37-year-old Osterman has an affair with a 16-year-old girl named Laurie Juspeczyk, which constitutes statutory rape in many jurisdictions (including New York, in which Osterman and Juspeczyk had their affair). When his partner Janey discovers the affair, she accuses him of "chasing jailbait" and calls him "sick" for getting involved with a teenager - then leaves him.

There's no way you would have chosen this username without being familiar with the fictional character of the same name. Naming yourself after a famous fictional statutory rapist is an obvious dog-whistle to indicate your support for ephebophilia and relaxing age of consent legislation. In the interests of good and proper behaviour, will you address these allegations and clarify your actual beliefs on the matter?

Back in the real world, I didn't look at your username and think "wow, this guy supports lowering the age of consent". Nor would any reasonable person acting in good faith. I thought "hehe, the guy with the blue cock lol". But if you're setting up a societal standard of "if you're accused of believing in something, you can't just stay silent - you have to immediately be forthcoming about what you really believe, even if the evidence presented is flimsy and weak", that's just incentivising bad actors to look for flimsy evidence with which to smear anyone they dislike, and you are duty-bound to respond to my (ironic) accusations above. Given Brandolini's law, smearing your enemies like this and interpreting their remaining silent as an admission of guilt amounts to a sort of interpersonal lawfare, functionally equivalent to SLAPP lawsuits: if you can't get someone you hate to stop expressing their opinions altogether, forcing them to waste hours and hours of their time laboriously refuting bullshit accusations made in bad faith is the next best thing.

So if someone is accused of believing in something, they are duty bound to be open and forthcoming about what their political beliefs actually are, regardless of how flimsy the evidence presented that they believe in it?

Perhaps "good" is a bit much, I'll stand back from that claim. But I do think it would be useful for him to actually clarify, now that it's a subject of discussion.

If he doesn't, then so be it. But he'd avoid quite a bit of headache if he at least stated it was all humor. Then we can have a more rational conversation in his defense. Until then, we're just left fumbling in the dark.

Check out how uncharitable one can be:...

Wow, haha, that is a crazy coincidence. Genuinely, I didn't pick the numbers with any mind for his girlfriend, I was actually just 16 at the time and had read the Watchmen comic.

In any case, the point I'm getting at is that bad actors will do what they want, but there can be obligations or good ideas which one should obey regardless. I have no doubt that a statement would do nothing for his accusers, in the same way that you could just dismiss the defense I gave above as obviously a pro-ephebophile person trying to hide their stance. But rational discussion would probably be aided by such a statement regardless.

Osterman has an affair with a 16-year-old girl named Laurie Juspeczyk,

Oh Jesus, what an unfortunate set of numbers to append to your username.

There's nothing bad or improper about what he did, or didn't do, regarding the sharing of his political beliefs. And I can use the existence of bad faith actors to point out that these demands for transparency are dishonest. This is like demanding people be honest when responding to Nazis asking if there are Jews in your basement.

Also, if a commie wants to make funny videos with an occasional "eat the rich" meme thrown in, he should be able to do so, without being forced to go through bizarre struggle sessions.

This is like demanding people be honest when responding to Nazis asking if there are Jews in your basement.

It is nothing like this. The appropriate analogy would be someone accusing you of hiding Jews in your basement under Nazi Germany. You should probably issue a denial regardless of what those people say.

Also, if a commie wants to make funny videos with an occasional "eat the rich" meme thrown in, he should be able to do so, without being forced to go through bizarre struggle sessions.

The question is precisely if he is or isn't a commie, in this case. Which you can certainly be, but if you're not, it would probably be better to clarify once this level of scrutiny arrives.

I will back down from "good/proper behavior" to "useful behavior", though.

It is nothing like this. The appropriate analogy would be someone accusing you of hiding Jews in your basement under Nazi Germany. You should probably issue a denial regardless of what those people say.

Fair, I'll take that bit of constructive criticism.

The question is precisely if he is or isn't a commie, in this case.

Allow me to rephrase then - if a person is making funny videos on the internet, with occasional jokes about eating the rich / gulags / etc., I don't think the question should be if he's a commie, or not.

I will back down from "good/proper behavior" to "useful behavior", though.

Well, I can't tell you what's useful to you, so fair enough.

IH needs to cease his policy of silence and be forthcoming (...) where his actual politics stand.

Plagiarism aside, this is a terrible idea. I have never seen this go well for anyone ever. Even a groveling apology/delete videos/promise to do be better rarely works.

Ever since I read FCfromSSC's Quality Contribution it's been stuck in my head. This part in particular seems relevant:

The other side is not looking for dialog. We are not participating in a good-faith conversation.

There is no way for IH to be forthcoming on what he believes without it being used as more evidence that he is a Nazi. IH's crimes are that he is clearly not a leftist and he has used many 4chan memes, including but not limited to Hitler references. For some, that is enough. For everyone else, the best he can do is not give the Stasi any more ammunition.

In a Bayesian sense, following mainstream MAGA Republican accounts on Twitter is very weak circumstantial evidence that someone is a "Nazi" (in the sense that the Very Online left use the term - which encompasses a lot of alt-right politics that has nothing to do with the OG NSDAP) - most MAGA Republicans are not alt-right, but most alt-right Americans are MAGA. Following GOPe accounts on Twitter is circumstantial evidence that someone is not a "Nazi" - the GOPe despise both actual Nazis and the "Nazi" alt-right as much as the left does. Whether DeSantis counts as mainstream or GOPe is left as an exercise to the reader.

But that isn't the context. The question is given that we all know the guy posts 14/88 memes, is he doing so because he actually has "Nazi" political views, or is he posting ironically. And in that context, affiliation with mainstream Republicans is much stronger evidence that the guy is serious - the overlap between "mainstream Republican" and "posts 14/88 memes ironically" is basically zero. People who post 14/88 memes ironically are either nihilistic trolls or lefties, and following mainstream Republicans on social media is good Bayesian evidence that someone is neither of those things.

In any case, I am happy to enforce the Rule of Goats against someone who LARPs as a Nazi absent very strong evidence that their heart is in the right place. As in I actually want to the Nazi character get chased round Europe by an old drunk and a cripple, or at least slip on a banana skin while goose-stepping.

following mainstream Republicans on social media is good Bayesian evidence that someone is neither of those things.

No, it isn't. It's bayesian evidence of wanting to keep abreast of political news.

Which, in my experience, is negatively correlated with being a nihilistic troll.

And in that context, affiliation with mainstream Republicans is much stronger evidence that the guy is serious - the overlap between "mainstream Republican" and "posts 14/88 memes ironically" is basically zero. People who post 14/88 memes ironically are either nihilistic trolls or lefties, and following mainstream Republicans on social media is good Bayesian evidence that someone is neither of those things.

That's a hell of a lot of sweeping generalisations based on the use of four digits, twice. Yeah no one on the planet has ever been an edgy idiot saying stupid shit because it causes a reaction. No, we're rationalists, we're smart, we're Bayesian so we can calculate that 1488 + nihilist/leftist = irony and 1488 + any affiliation with mainstream republicans = hide and protect the Jews.

The funny thing is, the rule of goats says I have to pretend I don't understand trolling either and treat you like an IFLS short busser.

In particular, the ones they cite are Libs Of Tik Tok, Gavin McInnes, and Ron Desantis. You could maybe excuse Desantis, but you still have to grapple with the question of whether mainstream conservatism itself moved in the direction of Nazism in recent years, which is probably something IH's accusers don't have any issue believing. They might be wrong, but it's not a trivially dismissed point of evidence.

There was a running non joke that white supremacy is the most inclusive social movement right now since people accused of being white supremacists included - whites, blacks, Indians, Hispanics and east asians. With libs of tik tok being run by a jewish woman - seems like nazism with will be the next wide tent pole coalition.

"He Must Respond" is a tactic used to justify further attacks against the target in environments where the original accusations don't carry enough weight.
When the attackers use the response as an excuse to escalate because the victim "did not reflect on his guilt" or "perpetuated further harm by minimizing his offenses", the debate can be shifted away from the original accusations to a deconstruction of the victim's conduct during the ordeal.

This tactic works extremely well on discussion forums where people are inclined to entertain hypotheticals and can be led away from the original topic. For example, the endless rounds of "Damore should have phrased it better," which ignored the absurdity of the accusations and shifted the burden of proof back to the defender.

In particular, the ones they cite are Libs Of Tik Tok, Gavin McInnes, and Ron Desantis. You could maybe excuse Desantis

None of them are Nazis. Easy.

it's not a trivially dismissed point of evidence.

It is trivially dismissed, it's a classic Motte and Bailey. Libs of TikTok is a Nazi -- No she's not -- OK, but she represents a Nazi-ward shift in the Republican base -- -- -- Stop there, that's a different (unjudgeable) question.

None of them are Nazis. Easy.

I didn't say any of them were. I said moving in that direction.

Half of all available moves will be "moves in the direction of" if you assume a one-dimensional axis, with arbitrarily chosen endpoints. The left has been steadily moving in the direction of pedophilia, for example.

Sure, I'm willing to admit that my evaluation of his political follows was incorrect. I was correcting someone for what I had actually said.

X believes Y implies Z. Of course, their belief is batshit insane. So if A is Y, then yes to X that is evidence of Z. But the problem isn’t A; it is X having an idiot view.

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