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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
First, it's not that the motte is full of "secret socialists" it's that the motte is overwhelmingly secular, progressive, and politically left wing. Yes, there is a difference. More specifically my view is that atheism is the default here. Being college-educated is the default here, A belief in the fundamental correctness of; "Science!", progress, identity politics, elite theory, external loci of control, Marx's model of class consciousness, Hegelian opprossor/opressed dynamics, and so on is the default here. Accordingly, anyone who doesn't already buy into all of these assumptions faces an uphill struggle if they want participate in the discussion.
Well this is the 64,000$ question isn't it. One of the core cultural differences between "Red" and "Blue" America is how they think and talk about questions of "authority", letter vs spirit of the law, and similar issues. I know what being credible or (un-credible) means to me. I know what it means when I talk to my friends, family, and co-workers in meat-space, but it's equally clear that what it means to me is very different from what it means to most of the users here. The simple answer from my perspective is that "credibility" is the quality possessed by an "authority", and that someone becoming (or being) un-credible is analogous to loosing one's authority. However because of the issue I observed above about shared assumptions, or rather the lack there of, this probably ought to be unpacked a bit. The traditional conservative definition of "an authority" is the combined qualities of being listened to and believed, both being necessary requirements. Someone who is listened to and not believed is not credible nor are they an authority, and vice versa. Hence the classic formulation of the "appeal to authority". You might not trust me but you can trust so-and-so can't you?
The thing is that the model of authority I have just described is substantially different from the one that is typically used here. The average Mottizen seems to view authority and credibility as things that are bequeathed or imposed society's elites rather than as emergent properties. See @The_Nybbler's line about "The NYT has credibility because they are among the definers of credibility" above, or Scott's long-form posts in defense of Fauci (either removed or retitled at some point because I can't seem to find it atm) and on Bounded Distrust for examples this in action. The difficulty from my perspective is that the whole idea of there being a "definer" or "arbiter" of credibility outside the people being spoken to comes across as complete nonsense because I do not share the sort of underlying assumptions listed above.
At risk of mod intervention myself: The less charitable interpretation of both @The_Nybbler and Scott's posts is that it doesn't matter whether Dr. Fauci and/or the NYT have been demonstrated to be liars, we need to trust them because that is what intelligent rational well-educated people do, and you wouldn't want to be mistaken for someone who is not intelligent, rational, or well-educated would you? To which my impulse is to reply with an eye roll. My ego/perception of my own self-worth is apparently not as wrapped up in being perceived as intelligent or well-educated as theirs are.
It is not that we need to trust them; I don't. It is that in denying what the New York Times says or what Fauci says -- no matter how much evidence you bring to the table -- you are reducing your own credibility and not affecting theirs at all. You're an "anti-vaxxer" or "lol a Faux News listening Drumpf supporter". And yes, authority and credibility are imposed; perhaps credibility should be emergent, but it is not. Anybody with power and authority will act as if Fauci and the NYT are telling the truth; if you act otherwise you will either need to find other cover for your actions, avoid judgement of them, or be penalized for them.
Reducing your own credibility among whom exactly? What's so bad about being a "Faux News listening Drumpf supporter"?
I get that you as an ambiguously gay Manhattanite who has chosen to spend their entire life immersed in a progressive environment believe this, but I don't think that history bears it out. Defeat is inevitable until it is not. The captain's word is inviolable until the mutiny.
What credibility the NYT has comes from people like you. You talk a big game about not trusting them but talk is cheap and your actions say otherwise. You could walk away at any time, why don't you? Simply put, I don't see much of a difference between you and the Soviet-era party apparatchik who nods along to the latest news in Pravda even when he knows it's a lie because he values his status within the party more than he values the truth. Ironically, being a practicing Catholic, I'm probably more inclined to sympathize to that position than a lot others in the rationalist diaspora, but don't pretend that isn't the choice you've made.
LOL. I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm neither ambiguous, gay, nor a Manhattanite.
And even if the mutiny succeeds, every hand turns against the mutineers. Your mutineers can't win unless they defeat the entire Admiralty and the state behind it as well. And they can't.
So walk away from my job and become what, a subsistence farmer in Iowa until the BLM (the government agency, that is) decides the land I'm using is too environmentally sensitive for farming? How does that reduce the NYTs credibility?
I don't nod along. But my not nodding along doesn't hurt them; sometimes it hurts me.
No, I don't think I do
Are you familiar with the history of mutinies? Forcing the admiralty to the negotiating table is actually a more common outcome than one might expect. It turns out that de facto control of a capital ship is one hell of a bargaining chip. Spithead, Gibraltar, Invagadon, Kiel, just to name a few.
Or, as our previous conversations have covered, there are plenty of decent tech and legal jobs in places like Hunstville, Orlando, and Fort Worth. Your rejection of them as beneath you is on you.
Yes you do, you're doing it here, and then you try to paint yourself as a victim for doing so, because victimhood complexes is what progs do. I notice that you never answered my question. What is so bad about about being an "anti-vaxxer" or a "Faux News listening Drumpf supporter"?
I work in Manhattan (now only occasionally, since I'm mostly remote), I don't live there, and never had a permanent place there (I did live there temporarily for a month).
Now I even know who you're confusing me with; I think he went by the username queensnyatty. Except I think he's neither ambiguous nor gay (nor, obviously, a Manhattanite) either. I have no legal background.
That one has to conceal it to keep one's job, among other things. Even as those around are constantly pushing the leftist line.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Like Scott once said:
Kolmogorov Complicity is still complicity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I doubt that Mottizens would overwhelmingly vote for US Democratic party or UK Labour (or equivalent in other countries)
Most of issues debated here are issues where existence of God/Supreme Being/Great Architect/Intelligent Designer is not relevant at all. When was the last time you saw here atheist/religious debate in the noughties style?
If only ;-(
When people here talk about Marx and Marxism, they mean in 99% cases "cultural Marxism" other than anything that Marx or anyone folowing him actually said and wrote.
...What percentage of Mottizens do you think voted Obama? I would guess at a number north of 75%.
More options
Context Copy link
I know it's been a while since @tracingwoodgrains has done one of his surveys, but if we take them at face value the most common political affiliation on the motte is Democrats, followed by various 3rd parties. Mottizens voted overwhelming for Clinton in 2016 and gave a slight majority to Biden in 2020.
I disagree.
Look around. It might not be obvious to you because it's the water you're swimming in but from the outside it's not to notice.
Well, in the last days, this space is mostly dedicated to Elon Musk and his Twitter escapades. What is the religious/biblical perspective on this current event? How could this issue be even explained in Biblical terms?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link