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 Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Whenever antiracist academics write papers about white being the default (I've heard this idea before), I get the feeling that this fact stings them and they don't like it and wish it to change.

Either I am wrong, and they're perfectly happy that white should be the default, or they are malicious and "you are a default so you don't need privileges" is not meant in good-faith.

Is "wishing it to change" malicious? Your message about their intentions is unclear.

What I didn't explain explicitly, and maybe I should have, is that if someone wants "white is the default" to change, surely the best way to do that is to stop treating white like a default, and start treating it like a coalition just like Blacks and asians, which would mean letting explicitly pro-White groups perform their activism. After all, a future where "white is not the default" is a future with explicit pro-white interest groups.

Since what we see in real life is people saying, "but whites are the default! You can't perform pro-white activism!" it shows that "but whites are the default" is said with this face.

The current setup of minority-focused interest groups seem to be mostly about changing the distribution of resources, not about changing "the idea of default."

which would mean letting explicitly pro-White groups perform their activism. After all, a future where "white is not the default" is a future with explicit pro-white interest groups.

The future is not now, though, and what would be normal in the future is not applicable now. Your logical trap is no less dishonest than what you're trying to accuse them of.

The issue of "the ideal world is not like the journey toward the ideal world", or in other words "perfect is the enemy of good" isn't new.

No, it means that when activists tear down pro-white activism they can't use the reasoning "but white is the default!" which is the lens that you originally brought up.

An honest (and I hope more frequent) reason to reject pro-white activism is "white people already have it good":

  1. It is falsifiable once the ideal future is obtained, if in case white people no longer have it good.

  2. It is falsifiable today, if in case white people currently do not have it good.

  3. It treats white people as a legitimate coalition instead of the default.

I did not spring a logical trap, I'm just pointing out dishonesty. The thing activists do currently is not (a) changing what the default is, the thing they are doing is (b) diverting resources and no amount of doing (b) will ever lead to (a).

We can totally treat white people as a legitimate coalition while simultaneously noticing that they don't need activism, but few argue this, because it would require data.

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