site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   26212 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 22, 2024

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.

A bit of heat generated by Trump dubbing Nikki Haley "Nimbra", a butchering of her Indian birth name:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4420434-trump-on-mocking-haleys-birth-name-its-just-something-that-came/

I'm not sure who the media controversy is aimed at. His base is absolutely going to love it, the normal Repubs have no choice but to vote for him, and his enemies can't hate him more than they already do.

I predict if her numbers continue to climb, he's gonna mention her daughter's married to a black guy. Way too tempting for a guy like Trump.

On that, a surprising number of the establishment Republicans have kids married to black people. Haley, McCain, Boehner, etc. What's with that?

  • -11

What's with that?

As a general rule, Republicans do not share the Democrats' fixation on race essentialism.

Why do you think Amy Coney Barrett adopted Haitian children if there was no fixation on race? There is obviously a virtue signaling element to that kind of decision, which is tied to the racial dynamics at play. She is leaning into those dynamics rather than rejecting them.

Why do you think Amy Coney Barrett adopted Haitian children if there was no fixation on race?

Catholicism.

ACB is a wealthy catholic woman and Haiti is a majority catholic country with a surplus of catholic orphans in catholic orphanages in [current year] where US child services tend to frown upon faith-based adoption in general and that of Trad-Caths in particular.

that of Trad-Caths in particular.

While the Trad-Caths(to which ACB is adjacent, although not actually technically one- Thomas and Scalia both were/are AFAIK) are sometimes a trial balloon for liberal democrat "let's try to crack down on conservative Christians for not being progressives" policies, there aren't actually any Trad-Cath adoption agencies. The three or so adoptions a year coming from Trad-Cath mothers(as it turns out making large families a status symbol and not allowing unmarried women unsupervised time with the opposite sex does a number here) find a recipient family without going through an agency through a whisper network.

Agreed, however, that the religious Catholicism is the reason for adopting Haitian children; having a large to very large family is a necessity for a woman in her social milieu and orphans from Haiti are easy to get if you don't care about race.

Agreed, however, that the religious Catholicism is the reason for adopting Haitian children; having a large to very large family is a necessity for a woman in her social milieu and orphans from Haiti are easy to get if you don't care about race.

This is actually not true though, the entire process was extremely expensive, difficult, and shady to say the least. It was absolutely not the path of least resistance for adopting children, they really wanted Haitian children.

there aren't actually any Trad-Cath adoption agencies.

Only because any agency that refused to toe the liberal line on abortion and sexual orientation got its' ass shut down 20 years ago. The purge of church-run orphanages and adoption agencies, ostensibly for the children's protection, was a whole thing during the late 90s and early 2000s. CCB was the last holdout, and they closed their doors in 2006.

Sure, but also IRL Trad-Caths don't need any adoption agencies, although I suppose underclass hispanics would line up to use theirs if available; when you have high ingroup cohesion and practically no fornication the handful of children a year that need to be adopted out can just be handled by a whisper network and you use a secular agency after the deal's already been made if applicable law requires it.

Ok that makes more sense, I think I misread/misinterpreted your previous comment as suggesting that Catholics weren't big on adoption to which my knee-jerk reaction was basically "Say Whut?"

Also, while this doesn't apply to someone as wealthy as ACB, for normal people who want to adopt there are far more non-white babies available than white

for normal people who want to adopt there are far more non-white babies available than white

That, and it's possible to inspect the merchandise before purchase rather than simply ordering and accepting it sight-unseen.

For a good that costs that much, even more so because these items are sold as-is with no warranty or return policy, I'm not surprised that even people wealthy enough to afford this kind of item are more interested in purchasing from a store that doesn't take multiple days to get to.

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