site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   24653 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 25, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's not "we must become our enemy to defeat them", it's "we must use tactics which work, even if the enemy has used them". "Democrats are the real racists" doesn't work. It convinces nobody of anything. Hlynka's preference is to keep losing without a fight and keep retreating into the smaller and smaller areas (both literal and figurative) the progressives haven't completely stomped, and hope the Second Coming happens before he runs out of area. That's why the scorn.

It's not "we must become our enemy to defeat them", it's "we must use tactics which work, even if the enemy has used them". "Democrats are the real racists" doesn't work.

And what are the tactics which work? From the outside it looks like a fight between "the enemy won by calling us racist, we must call them racist!" and "no you moron, the enemy won by being racist, we must be racist!". I agree and disagree with both, we can lay to rest the idea of using accusations of racism to win, but it seems worthwhile remind ourselves to not actually endorse racism.

As long as your enemy defines what 'racist' is, you have to be willing to endorse things that they call 'racism' and you don't. Instead, Republican Good People fall for the purity spiral and back away from anything the Democrats call racist (such as the idea that black people commit more violent crime than would be expected based on population)

you have to be willing to endorse things that they call 'racism' and you don't.

Well, the whole issue seems to be the Hlynka does find it racist, and isn't just applying the labels of the other side. There's something to be said about this not helping your win, but every once in a while people are going to discuss what they actually believe, rather than using arguments to win the Culture War. It seems to me we're in the former scenario rather than the latter.

Republican Good People fall for the purity spiral and back away from anything the Democrats call racist (such as the idea that black people commit more violent crime than would be expected based on population)

If Democrats have the power of defining 'racism', and he's purity spiraling, why doesn't he go all the way, and tell us how anti-white racism is ok because of our white privilege?

I don't think he ever denied the fact that black people commit more crime, or called pointing that fact out racist. My impression is that the contention is about the reasons why they're doing it, and I think I have a firm grasp over why each sides takes their respective position on that debate. What I don't see is how "Dems are the real racists" enters into it. From what I understand, you believe that his framing it this ways plays into the Dems' hands by allowing them to point at things like the differences in crime rates as proof of "systemic racism". I think this is wrong for two reasons:

  • He does not seem to buy into the idea that crime rate differences are proof of racism any more than you, or anyone else here.
  • As you said yourself, the Dems define what is racist, so the framing he chooses is irrelevant. No matter what he says he will be racist, so his framing does not play into the enemies hands any more than yours.

Well, the whole issue seems to be the Hlynka does find it racist, and isn't just applying the labels of the other side.

Worse, then; he's internalized their labels.

I don't think he ever denied the fact that black people commit more crime, or called pointing that fact out racist.

Above he claimed, without any evidence at all, that you can't use demographics to determine who is more likely to shoplift (specifically, p=0.5 -- no significance)

If Democrats have the power of defining 'racism', and he's purity spiraling, why doesn't he go all the way, and tell us how anti-white racism is ok because of our white privilege?

I think he just doesn't like the particular wording.

but it seems worthwhile remind ourselves to not actually endorse racism.

Why not? Everybody loves racism. It should be a winning proposition in a democracy.

There's many reasons. One is a question of values, though I understand it is unlikely to convince you, it means "everybody's doing it" isn't going to move me either. Another is "be careful what you wish for", you may very well be right it's a winning proposition in a democracy, and that's why we're getting it good and hard. I don't know about you, but I'm not enjoying it very much. Another still is the one I pointed out in the previous comment - the whole thing could be a red herring, and while we're fighting over whether we should call other racists or be racist to win, the actual winning tactics are something else entirely, and are currently being used against us.

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