site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   35361 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022

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.

26
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A fairly large problem with this argument is that under 'the English gaze' Meghan doesn't parse as black. In this country our black communities mostly are only two or three generations old so there are relatively few very light-skinned black people. Moreover, this isn't Norway - even going back centuries there has always been a non-trivial proportion of ethnically English people at least as 'swarthy' as Meghan. Personally, I did not realise that Meghan was officially black until the media kindly informed me, and that's as a young person with an unhealthy interest in the culture war. I suspect this to have been a common experience among Brits.

So, if we are to argue that racism was a large factor in Megan's treatment by the Royal Family, we must suppose that either (a) the British aristocracy are unusually well attenuated to the American racial classification system or (b) that despite not sub-consciously categorising Meghan as black, the Royals were racist to her on account of the consciously received knowledge that she is of African-American descent.

Now I accept that an argument can be made for both these cases, but neither seems obviously true to me. More probable is the suggestion that she was disliked for being American.

A fairly large problem with this argument is that under 'the English gaze' Meghan doesn't parse as black. In this country our black communities mostly are only two or three generations old so there are relatively few very light-skinned black people.

Also we have a fairly common thing where common chavvy white girls will fake tan to the point of looking like Meghan or darker, much like the Ganguro style girls of Japan, and this is particularly common among footballers' wives and other shallow fame-seekers -- of which Meghan is definitely one. So I presume most people just thought she was yet another famehunting fake tanned slag who landed the famous man she hunted. Her level of entitlement and attention seeking (watch her unnervingly find the camera in any room and stare directly into it with a plastic smile!) certainly made that angle seem likely to me.

Meghan doesn't look any darker than Victoria Beckham, for instance.

Whatever you think of her character, I can't imagine anyone thinking she's a 'famehunting fake tanned slag', since she was already quite famous, is obviously not fake tanned, and is undeniably elegant and attractive - a world away from the stereotypical Essex sambuca girl.

She can't have been all that famous, as I never heard of her before she married into the British royal family. I'm not claiming to be an infallible index of famous Americans or anything, but if I haven't even heard someone's name in passing I don't believe they're actually particularly famous. Being that famous means that almost everyone, if not everyone, actually has heard of you before.

since she was already quite famous

I would be willing to bet that less than 1% of people here had ever heard of her before she became entangled with the Prince.

is obviously not fake tanned

Just because she's not obviously fake tanned (i.e. badly and cheaply) doesn't mean she couldn't be at all. Good fake tan exists and it looks pretty much like her.

and is undeniably elegant and attractive

"tactless and rude" somewhat undermines this interpretation of her. Every single part of her screams fake. But if that's what you're into...

a world away from the stereotypical Essex sambuca girl.

Seems a Prince's wife is just a tier up from footballer's wife, to me. She might be higher quality, but she's of the same taxonomy.

So, if we are to argue that racism was a large factor in Megan's treatment by the Royal Family, we must suppose that either (a) the British aristocracy are unusually well attenuated to the American racial classification system or (b) that despite not sub-consciously categorising Meghan as black, the Royals were racist to her on account of the consciously received knowledge that she is of African-American descent.

In my former British colony of a nation half-black people like Meghan are considered "half-caste" and it was a legitimately distinct category from black or white. But they are/were considered to fall between the two in status

So it's simultaneously possible for her to be not-black to people and to be different or less than.

As I said: I'm skeptical that this can all be boiled down to racism (the one concrete racist accusation they raised about the Royal Family - someone inquired about her son's skin tone- is one I've heard in black families...) but it's not impossible they actually are somewhat racist, on top of classist, snobbish and distrustful of foreigners (especially divorced Americans)

I'm American, and she doesn't look black to me either. After hearing about it for the first time when it made the news last year, I now think... she still doesn't look black, actually. Her hair and nose especially. Unless she's displaying stereotypically black speech patterns or something in private, the race angle here is transparently silly.

She's actually almost certainly had a nose operation to narrow her nose, which was previously one of her more African-American features.

(crap site, but the pictures don't lie https://radaronline.com/photos/prince-harry-meghan-markle-nose-job-plastic-surgery-photos/)

So she made herself less pretty?

As an american, to me she looks ambiguously something-or-other; if her eyes were darker I'd think she was some manner of hispanic. I'd certainly not call her black without adding "...ish"

Moreover, this isn't Norway - even going back centuries there has always been a non-trivial proportion of ethnically English people at least as 'swarthy' as Meghan. Personally, I did not realise that Meghan was officially black

I doubt Meghan would be considered black in Norway either. She certainly wouldn’t here in Finland.

Nobody thinks she's black. She's black in the same way that you ain't black if you don't vote for Biden. It's more of an honorific than a description, and the charges of racism are transparently cynical. To assert that she is black is to signal tribal allegiance and dare anyone to point out the madness. This is a very real case of see deer, say horse. It is perhaps fitting that your trans colleague would insist on doing so the most strongly.

I'm pretty sure you got users mixed up there. I have no trans colleague...

Right, I meant Pongahl's trans colleague.

I don't think she would be considered black in the US, except by people who have an ideological interest in her being considered as such.

She probably wouldn’t be described as such by someone passing her on the street, but if she were, say, an HR lady or secretary or what have you instead of a princess, then ‘hey, Meghan the new HR admin is black’ probably wouldn’t surprise anyone.

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