site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   29195 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 18, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

these people are a net negative to the community

I want to say that it's actually not bad if you have the elites of your society freed from labor to actually do the work of being elites. It's a natural specialization and a good thing both for the elites and the people they administer. Pretty much every successful empire has this going on. You don't want the people making the big decisions to get lost in the petty details. For everyone's sake.

The real problem is that these people want this status without doing the work or having the abilities required of an elite class, let alone any love for the people, loyalty to the nation or what have you.

Were this black american pseudo-nobility mostly made of Clarence Thomases, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The real problem is that these people want this status without doing the work or having the abilities required of an elite class, let alone any love for the people, loyalty to the nation or what have you.

This mentality also finds itself at home with privileged, white and entitled libertarians who want to enact a world where the market solves all problems, and you think you can do away with politics entirely. It's a worldview that says I have no obligations to others, if I can get rich nobody should bother me. It's quite striking how much they idealize the worldview that animates the underclasses and third world countries of the rest of the planet.

Libertarianism does not say you have no obligations to others. This is a ridiculous strawman.

(It does say that your obligations to others are limited, which bleeding-heart liberalism and progressivism do not, but that, as they say, is a "feature")

Libertarianism does not say you have no obligations to others. This is a ridiculous strawman.

Is it? I got blasted pretty hard every time I introduced the concept to PCM. Humor aside, you got better quality political discussion there then you did in actual political subreddits. Maybe not to someone like you who has a more sophisticated understanding of it. But to the rebellious young adults who protested Jesus in the household and found their new Bible in "Man, State and Economy" with an Internet connection, they 'absolutely' think that, and will explicitly tell you as much.

Libertarianism does not say you have no obligations to others. This is a ridiculous strawman.

Have you read any of Bryan Caplan waxing about his "beautiful bubble"?

Instead, I pursue the strategy that actually works: Making my small corner of the world beautiful in my eyes.

Yes. He calls the world outside “dreary, insipid, ugly, boring, wrong, and wicked”, but adds that “Trying to reform it is largely futile” and implies he has no obligation to waste his efforts.

By declaring effort largely futile, he makes it clear any predictably unsuccessful attempts would be mere signaling of “caring” without real effect.

Sure, community organizers not needing a day job is a sign of societal wealth more than anything, but these people don’t do anything to help their communities, they just stoke racial tensions and grift.

That's because a money grab will always be easier and more gainful to an opportunist, than putting in the hard work of being productive and trying to align incentives in your community.

Pointing out the problems of the people you're surrounded by and live amongst never earns you any friends, but only contempt. Telling people there is no magic bullet to solve their issues, you have to stop being an entitled single mother, you have to go to school, you have to keep your house in order, you have to conduct yourself morally and be an upstanding citizen is a recipe for making enemies with the people you're trying to help. People don't want to hear it. And this is no different with almost any other negative social feedback loop out there. If I get on the podium in a presidential debate and say I'm not going to solve all your problems. This is a generational issue. It took us half a century just to get where we are currently and will take decades to give what my constituencies what they are asking for. Now vote for me. Do people think that'll happen? No. They'll settle for a liar who makes false promises and delivers mediocre outcomes.

That's a pretty bold statement.

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