site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28121 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 15, 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.

NPR is in the news lately. First because they have a new CEO, who tweets like a parody of white liberal women. OK those were "in the past" but they were only 4-8 years ago... has she matured at all since then? So far no sign of that.

I hope the irony of dragging out her tweets from 5 years ago isn't lost on us.

On the one hand, that bridge was crossed and burned a long time ago, so I guess sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. OTOH, this makes a mockery of conservative opposition to cancel culture.

At least Rufo is earnest in his contempt for free expression, so I'll begrudgingly grant him that.

On the one hand, that bridge was crossed and burned a long time ago, so I guess sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Precisely. This is just an attempt by Rufo to (as Alinsky put it) “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” It won't work, probably, because NPR is not just OK with those tweets but finds them an absolute positive.

On the one hand, that bridge was crossed and burned a long time ago, so I guess sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. OTOH, this makes a mockery of conservative opposition to cancel culture.

Or was it a "I give the Devil the benefit of law" thing? If the expected benefits never come in, behavior naturally changes.

But I'll bite the bullet: yes, a lot of the conservative opposition to "cancel culture" is at least partly dishonest because sometimes the issue is merely that they think X tenet of the prevailing view is just wrong and no one should be punished for violating it. It's not that it's wrong for a company to fire someone for X take on gender they had three years ago on Twitter based on some appeal to fundamental rights (surely cons have weaker tools here than progressives), it's just bad that the company culture has polarized so much from what conservatives consider correct thinking. Cancel culture is bad both because it involves inquisitorial behavior and what that behavior is aimed at.

But then, a lot of progressive appeals to safety or whatever are also self-serving lies. Everyone is trying to appeal to some overriding principle because the common ground is shrinking.

But I'll bite the bullet: yes, a lot of the conservative opposition to "cancel culture" is at least partly dishonest because sometimes the issue is merely that they think X tenet of the prevailing view is just wrong and no one should be punished for violating it.

Oh, well you'll be happy to know Rufo is completely 100% honest that this is his view. Quoting directly

It's not the same thing, at all. And I do not recognize "cancel culture" as a valid, coherent concept. Every culture cancels—the point is who sets the terms, on which hierarchy of values. Do try to keep up.

I think it's stupid when people bring up one random no-context tweet or private joke and use it as an excuse to cancel someone. That's not really what this is though. It's a whole series of tweets, stretching across years, which perfectly match her entire career and worldview. This is who she is.

Also, there's no real pressure on her yet besides people on right-wing twitter dunking on her. She's still very much in charge. It's her underling who got fired because of one essay (admittedly an essay where he publicly broadsided the entire organization).

Doesn't everyone that brings up a tweet or private joke instead to say "this is who they are"?

OTOH, this makes a mockery of conservative opposition to cancel culture.

How long do you have to warn people "don't do this or the same tactics will be used against you when the tide turns" before it's ok to make good on the warning?

Yah, it's sauce for the gander and all that.

Free expression is fine. She's saying she will run her organizations according to those arguably illegal principles.

I wouldn't want to fire a guy for tweeting "There Might Be Niggers Here, He Thought to Himself etc."
But if the chairman of the national science foundation started posting "don't feel like giving any grants to niggers this year lmao" there should be questions asked about whether he's violating the law.

At least this is the distinction being used to justify his tactics among liberal types. After the New York Times went after middle school girls for singing along to rap lyrics I'm personally happy to make them eat their own shit for eternity.

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