site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   30280 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025

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.

Woke is intersectionality. I may be cheating a bit in that people who came up with that term aren't among the most brief and clear writers, but at list euphemism treadmill didn't advance far enough for it to not be a term of self-identification anymore.

Is there a difference between one that is socially conscious and someone who is woke?

Yes, and the answer is pretty obvious if you first ask your self "what is socially conscious"? Is it possible to be socially conscious and think black people aren't being arrested more due to discrimination, or the system being set against them? Is it possible to be socially conscious that women don't go into tech as much as men because they don't enjoy the subject matter of the field as much, rather than because they're being discriminated against, or because the system is set against them? Is it possible to be socially conscious and think that trans women aren't women, and it's a bad idea to send them into women's sports, changing rooms, prisons, and domestic abuse shelters? If the answer to these questions was "yes", then you have you example of a difference between being socially conscious and being woke. If the answer was "no" then you have smuggled an ideology into the term "socially conscious", and that ideology is Woke.

This is an excellent distinction between the two and a fair appraisal. How do you explain the field of sociology consistently turning out socially conscious, but leftist graduates at a rate much, much higher than other fields of study?

Do you mind if I turn the whole thing on you, and ask you to elaborate on this claim? What do you think gets unfairly branded as "woke"? Can you show that it got to the point that no one knows what "woke" originally meant anymore? If it's increasingly a nebulous boogieman, would you say there was once a point it was not nebulous and not a boogieman?

No, I am happy to oblige. Considering that the term woke is now being used to describe civil rights era executive orders, I do think that this term has had a significant meaning creep since the early 2010's. In essence, when it was seldomly used as a self-descriptor for elements of the progressive left it had a much more firm meaning, as opposed to now, when right wing media uses it to describe just about anything from beer to green energy. Fox News alone has ~50 articles written in the last week about the topic. Almost all use in the last month of the word when broadening the search to all news sources brings up hundreds of results, almost all of them from right wing news sources or describing actions by the right.

This is an excellent distinction between the two and a fair appraisal. How do you explain the field of sociology consistently turning out socially conscious, but leftist graduates at a rate much, much higher than other fields of study?

Much the same way I would explain why a particular country ended up owning a particular plot of land some centuries ago. Maybe it was conquest, maybe it was a political marriage, or maybe it was some court intrigue. A fascinating question for those interested in history, no doubt, but little more. It can cast little light on whether or not the theories in question are an accurate description of reality.

Considering that the term woke is now being used to describe civil rights era executive orders, I do think that this term has had a significant meaning creep since the early 2010's.

Why? The laws in question seem to fit quite well into what various "intersectional" theories would prescribe, and so it seems fair to call them woke.

In essence, when it was seldomly used as a self-descriptor for elements of the progressive left it had a much more firm meaning, as opposed to now, when right wing media uses it to describe just about anything from beer to green energy.

Have you ever talked to someone who holds an intersectional worldview? Your example immediately brought to mind a quote from the World Economic Forum conference that I covered a while back, where one of the participants says the following:

I think the queer struggle, at least in the country that I come from, and the region that I come from, is also connected to the Palestinian struggle it's also connected to a lot of struggles the migrant workers, the women... so it's very important to take it as a whole and not only focus on just one.

@aqouta mentions the Omnicause, and while it may be another derisive name for the phenomenon we're discussing, it's a handy keyword to search for examples of how the very same people will jump from climate change, to queer acceptance to free Palestine. In other words the critics are entirely right to point to everything from beer to green energy, because woke people themselves believe their cause is about all those things.

Almost all use in the last month of the word when broadening the search to all news sources brings up hundreds of results, almost all of them from right wing news sources or describing actions by the right.

I see where you're coming from. Way back when, there was a small cottage industry in academia, writing tomes upon tomes about "neoliberalism", but the darnedest thing was no one could ever point me to a person calling themselves a "neoliberal". This was frustrating, because as an aspiring freethinker, I didn't want to just hear about why an idea was bad from it's critics, I also wanted to hear why it could be good from it's proponents, and make up my own mind.

So I get it, a spooky term for a nebulous concept is a red flag. However, when investigating these things I think it's important to ask why there are no people who want to apply a given term to themselves. In case of "woke" this is because it's just another iteration of a decades-long trend of a particular brand of progressive doing their best to prevent a label sticking to their movement and ideology, so they can avoid criticism. From cultural Marxism to Political Correctness, Critical Theory, DEI, and Social Justice, all the way to the aforementioned Intersectionality, and culminating in Freddie de Boer's, who's hardly a right-winger himself, rant - Please Just Fucking Tell Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand.

We can again contrast that with "neoliberalism", which started off as a boogeyman, but which ended up being a self-descriptive term, when people got fed up of lefties beating up on a strawman, and founded /r/neoliberal. I don't have sources for this, but I heard the very same thing happened with the term "capitalism" which was Marx' very own nebulous boogeyman, but at some point liberals got fed up with him, and decided to adopt the term as their own.

If "woke" really was a term right-wingers invented out of thin air, that didn't describe anything real, I'd expect it to follow the same trajectory as "neoliberalism" or "capitalism". But the trajectory of abandonment observable in other terms like "cultural Marxism", "DEI", or "Social Justice" shows the term is pointing at something real that certain people do actually believe in, but don't want to answer for.

Much the same way I would explain why a particular country ended up owning a particular plot of land some centuries ago. Maybe it was conquest, maybe it was a political marriage, or maybe it was some court intrigue. A fascinating question for those interested in history, no doubt, but little more. It can cast little light on whether or not the theories in question are an accurate description of reality.

Why? The laws in question seem to fit quite well into what various "intersectional" theories would prescribe, and so it seems fair to call them woke.

Is civil rights woke now? It was called civil rights by virtually the entire political spectrum for over 40 years, until now some on the right use the word "woke" to describe it and other measures they feel are beneath the DEI umbrella. "Woke" was not in the prose of anyone in the 1960's.

Have you ever talked to someone who holds an intersectional worldview? Your example immediately brought to mind a quote from the World Economic Forum conference that I covered a while back, where one of the participants says the following: I think the queer struggle, at least in the country that I come from, and the region that I come from, is also connected to the Palestinian struggle it's also connected to a lot of struggles the migrant workers, the women... so it's very important to take it as a whole and not only focus on just one.

I have talked to several people who have an intersectional worldview and have a close friend who would fall squarely into that camp. In my opinion, intersectionality's usefulness varies, and the danger on the left is that it is the only lens some are willing and/or capable of using.

At the end of the day, it is a lens that one can put on and take off, which combined with other lenses, can paint a more complete picture of a situation, or demonstrate the role of identity groups in a social phenomenon. This generally is at the expense of individual experience, however, and one has to be careful that it is not used as weapon to silence others. When it is the only lens used, comments like the one you shared become the norm and every singe social interaction across the globe becomes the oppressed/oppressor narrative, disregarding all other factors.

Pragmatically, the reason why intersectionality has been a rallying cry on the left this century is without it, it is a collection of moderate to small sized special interests when can be easily overruled. In a group, they are formidable and can vie for power through plurality. The right in my opinion, does not have this level of fracturing in its base.

@aqouta mentions the Omnicause, and while it may be another derisive name for the phenomenon we're discussing, it's a handy keyword to search for examples of how the very same people will jump from climate change, to queer acceptance to free Palestine. In other words the critics are entirely right to point to everything from beer to green energy, because woke people themselves believe their cause is about all those things.

The number of people that would identify with that movement, or those that support it but don't identify with it that apply it to everything is a minority, albeit an incredibly vocal one, interestingly, the right magnifies those voices as a rallying cry for their agenda. Climate change in particular is also a dubious one, as it actually has a decent amount of support on the right. There was an 81 member Conservative Climate Caucus in the congressional session that just ended. That is just over 37% of all republicans elected to that chamber. So while I agree that climate change is a progressive goal, it has a sizable amount of support on the right.

I see where you're coming from. Way back when, there was a small cottage industry in academia, writing tomes upon tomes about "neoliberalism", but the darnedest thing was no one could ever point me to a person calling themselves a "neoliberal". This was frustrating, because as an aspiring freethinker, I didn't want to just hear about why an idea was bad from it's critics, I also wanted to hear why it could be good from it's proponents, and make up my own mind.

So I get it, a spooky term for a nebulous concept is a red flag. However, when investigating these things I think it's important to ask why there are no people who want to apply a given term to themselves. In case of "woke" this is because it's just another iteration of a decades-long trend of a particular brand of progressive doing their best to prevent a label sticking to their movement and ideology, so they can avoid criticism. From cultural Marxism to Political Correctness, Critical Theory, DEI, and Social Justice, all the way to the aforementioned Intersectionality, and culminating in Freddie de Boer's, who's hardly a right-winger himself, rant - Please Just Fucking Tell Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand.

We can again contrast that with "neoliberalism", which started off as a boogeyman, but which ended up being a self-descriptive term, when people got fed up of lefties beating up on a strawman, and founded /r/neoliberal. I don't have sources for this, but I heard the very same thing happened with the term "capitalism" which was Marx' very own nebulous boogeyman, but at some point liberals got fed up with him, and decided to adopt the term as their own.

If "woke" really was a term right-wingers invented out of thin air, that didn't describe anything real, I'd expect it to follow the same trajectory as "neoliberalism" or "capitalism". But the trajectory of abandonment observable in other terms like "cultural Marxism", "DEI", or "Social Justice" shows the term is pointing at something real that certain people do actually believe in, but don't want to answer for. I think this is a fair point, and the de Boer article does illustrate that there is an issue with the every shift leftist coalition. I think your example and exploration of "Neoliberal" is an interesting one, I'd like to explore the other examples and why they have had different outcomes.

  1. Cultural Marxism - except for more fringe examples, the majority of the people in the movement were not and did not identify as marxist, even if some of the concepts came from critical theory. The average person could not follow the association, and in this case the "marxism" messaging worked against the right. It was specific and the shoe didn't fit well.
  2. While "Social Justice" and "Social Justice Warrior" has faded in use, I don't think I have heard or read of someone on the left disagreeing with that label. It was specific and had trouble sticking as a slur, similar to the reasons that "pro-life" has never really become one.
  3. DEI is more descriptive and is a term that has been embraced by the left, very similar to your neoliberal example. In fact, most initiatives at the corporate or government level are called DEI initiatives. Other than the use of "DEI" hire which has been used very effectively, it still means something more specific.
  4. Capitalism is still used by many on the left as a slur for nearly any economic issue, inequality or unfair practice, whether it is rooted in it in actual free market capitalism or not. I think this is an apt comparison as the meaning used to be pretty defined (other than Marx's usage), until the early 21st century. The only difference is that the majority of media sources, especially legacy media, on the left do not use it as some sort of rallying cry. It is used much more in passing on social media or in person during conversations. The number of times I have heard someone on the left complain nebulously about "blank" issue being capitalism is in the hundreds.
  5. Libertarian is also a word that has seen significant meaning creep over the same time period and is the one I get most frustrated about. It used to mean someone who was generally: socially liberal, economically conservative, live and let live and had at least some understanding of the NAP (non aggression principle). Now its most common usage seems to be a closet republican, who is too ashamed to call themselves one or to identify as conservative, but thinks that support of major government action to achieve their primarily socially conservative goals is ideal, embraces authoritarianism, and votes straight ticket republican.

Anyway, I digress, but appreciate the dialogue. I think the thing I am coming away with is that if a label is used more by the opposition than the group or initiatives it describes, it is more likely to have its meaning become nebulous over time. Especially if the word/words are short or need some sort of additional explanation of what it is. The more specific the terminology is, or if the term is adopted by those it is being used to describe, it does not seem to happen nearly as much.

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