site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   35636 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 Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

but is the scene it depicts any uglier than, say, this one?

I mean, yes, obviously? The grafitti alone, to say nothing of all the people who've made themselves ugly.

Hm, I had to look pretty hard to find graffiti, and there is one person with pink hair; I am not sure who else depicted there can be described as having made themselves ugly (and I have certainly seen shades of dyed hair which are not at all ugly). So, I am guessing that that is not what the OP had in mind.

  • -10

Pink hair, blue lipstick is a terrible combination, not to mention the septum piercing and maybe the person is blind, hinted at by the sunglasses, which is why they can't tell the person they are cuddling is a bearded lady. Or maybe not a lady, just a guy who can't grow more than a very scraggly beard.

Mostly it's the terrible smirky expressions on the faces. Nobody is smiling, they all have that quirked-lip smug look, like they are constantly thinking "look how great and unconventional I am, scaring the normies, congratulate me and validate me for being stunning and brave!", which is very unattractive.

Nobody is smiling, they all have that quirked-lip smug look, like they are constantly thinking "look how great and unconventional I am, scaring the normies, congratulate me and validate me for being stunning and brave!", which is very unattractive.

To be fair, I would say that's an extremely accurate depiction of the pink-haired types in the poster.

The funny thing about many of these people who really badly try to distinguish themselves as unique is that they still adopt much of the same underlying beliefs and values as the mainstream does, they just tend to proclaim it louder, take marginally more radical positions, and pretend that makes them "subversive". It's difference in the most trivial and safe manner possible, the type that's more likely to get you applauded instead of burned for heresy.

You had to look hard? There isn't an un-defaced building visible.

Undercuts are ugly, pink hair is ugly, whatever that beard creature is on the left is ugly. Almost everyone is fat and multiple people sport symbology of terrorist groups. And the vandalised pride flag is the most conceptually ugly thing in the world.

And the vandalised pride flag is the most conceptually ugly thing in the world.

You can tell exactly when gay men lost control of the movement, because gay men are good at design and prefer things to be pretty.

It feels vaguely alt-right-twitter-fascist to argue aesthetics like this, but come on. Everyone in that illustration is obese, save the two women wearing burkas, and though I personally rather like the way they look, the intention of a burka is to make women less attractive. Both buildings in the background have graffiti, including a delightful short paean to "CLIT" on the front door of the apartment building.

Opinions differ on the aesthetic quality of tattoos and piercings, but if you ask me they can be attractive only in isolation. When everyone in the foreground has a tattoo, piercings, or both, it's hard to argue that looks good.

And, sigh, though I don't personally have a problem with it.... it's worth saying the quiet part out loud: less than a third of the people in that illustration could be mistaken for ethnic Germans. That's a fine vision for America, but in a country where ~90% of citizens have European ancestry, what is that trying to say? What would it say if I put together a poster of my vision for South Africa and 3/4 of the people depicted were white?

Everyone in that illustration is obese, save the two women wearing burkas,

At least the woman on the bike may have some muscles under her fat and be strong as well as chunky. She does seem to be doing work, riding a delivery bike of plants and small fruit trees.

That's a fine vision for America, but in a country where ~90% of citizens have European ancestry, what is that trying to say?

I'd point out that despite the perceived lack of ethnic Germans, just about everyone in that picture seems okay with each other. If anything, there's a strong message being sent about assimilation into the beliefs of the progressive West - a world in which they didn't let their national or religious backgrounds divide people into certain locations. Indeed, the two seemingly Middle Eastern characters don't mind being around people who are engaging in some fairly sinful (by Islamic standards) activities.

It's assimilation into a mindset that, while not totally Western, is certainly closer to the West than it is any other culture's.

I'd point out that despite the perceived lack of ethnic Germans, just about everyone in that picture seems okay with each other.

Just about everyone in the picture is only engaging with one other person, generally the one they're banging, and ignoring the rest. Notably, not one person is actually helping someone else, or improving the community.

They don't 'mind' anyone, but neither is anyone helping the cripple in the street in front of them, or cleaning up the graffiti, or supporting the local businesses repair the damage that still leaves metal shutters instead of windows. This is a government that might pave the roads, but isn't clearing out the hornet nest between residential housing projects. If the utopian vision of the future isn't helping the less fortunate or past victims in times of relative plenty, what is the expectation when things go bad?

There's a saying that the opposite of love isn't hate, but apathy. The opposite of a cohesive identity isn't hatred of all other identities, it's indifference. Socially indifferent, atomized people don't create strong communities, or support strong social networks, because when the primary unit of caring is yourself and what matters to you, subsidizing someone else's welfare is a burden on you, and other people's misfortune is their own problem. The wheelchair person in the road may be getting a disability check, but no one is is offering her a push so that (s)he can go outside and walk the dog without pushing forward with one hand alone. No one is clearing a path on the side walk out of consideration, so that they one-free handed wheelchair-bound person isn't literally in the middle of the road, relying on bikers or vehicles to not hit them.

A cohesive social identity poster wouldn't have had everyone ignorring eachother, but people doing things as a group, not just with maybe one other person. Groups sharing a meal, or playing team sports, or cleaning up their communities, or helping eachother in small ways like helping a wheelchair person cross the road or use a sidewalk.

just about everyone in that picture seems okay with each other.

Well yeah, 'cos they're all banging each other (at least that is what I take from the visible PDA). Except the dad and kid, and I'm not even sure that is the kid's dad. It could be the mother's boyfriend in their polycule.

Really? The woman with pink hair is not obese. Nor the woman in the wheelchair. Nor the two people making out. Nor the guy talking on his cell phone. Nor anyone on the balconies, other than maybe the exercising woman. In fact, there is almost no one in the pic whom I would call particularly obese.

Re the demographics of the pic, that is a different question than re whether the scene is ugly. And someone else noted that this was displayed in a particular area, the demographics of which might be different

maybe the exercising woman

I'm pretty sure that's a guy, if you mean the one on the top left doing a yoga pose. They've got a beard. Not that that means anything nowadays, what with "men can get pregnant too, women can have penises".

Technically, you can be unhealthily overweight (BMI >25) without being obese (BMI >30). The two people making out are definitely at least overweight.

Medicine considers obesity a disease, one that is preventable. This supposed utopia has multiple visibly diseased people, suffering from a preventable condition.

Another minor point is the raccoon. It is an invasive species in Germany. A "Green" utopia should surely be free of invasive species. Or maybe they've been influenced by American media so much that they think it's normal to have raccoons living in cities. (Curiously, the squirrel depicted is the native red squirrel and not the invasive American grey squirrel. The Greens don't seem to have a coherent stance on invasive species.)

"Obese" is a quite low bar to someone seemingly used to American levels of fatness. It doesn't only mean "unable to leave the house because he is too wide for the doorframes.".

No, it does not. But, again, which of the people is obese under that lower standard?

The couple on the front right look like they put effort into looking bad.

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