site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   27722 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 13, 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.

It's not about race, it's about politics.

Well, not primarily, at least.

You are against affirmative action in favor of "race-blind meritocracy"

Of course. I am in favor of prosperity. This is how best to get it. (And in favor of fairness, and of good racial relations. This gives that, too.)

You are opposed to being "pro-white" in favor of being "pro-meritocracy"

Mostly? I'm certainly pro-white in that I want white people to do well, that I think we've been the most successful race on earth to date, and think that there are some domains where we may need more advocacy. I'm not in favor of engaging in a process of racial competition and spoils-dividing instead of prosperity/wealth-producing.

You are in favor of national over racial identity

Mostly. But not out of any special affinity for national identity, but because it gives something to unite around. And not strictly opposed to racial identity either, just heavily cautious.

The proper location for identity is in Jesus Christ, of course.

You are an favor of American focus on "dynamism" rather than racial issues

Yes, I want success, not squabbling.

So where's the dissidence? That's just standard boomer conservative. Maybe you believe in race and IQ and hate women, that doesn't make you a dissident it basically just makes you a Republican. A lot of Republicans have low-key or implicit HBD views and similar "edgy" views on gender.

To disappoint you further, I like women. Sure, you've convinced me that racial views don't suffice to make me especially dissident; I suppose, now, I'd rather not be dissident, that it is wrong and counterproductive.

Who are the jews in the dissident right?

Hence, the sheep in wolves' clothing. These people act all based and red-pilled with edgy memes or greek statue avatars, but at the end of the day they basically just support republican talking points, are highly defensive of Jews, and don't really care for white identity politics.

Okay, then, good.

Yes, actually, I do think they should have fostered a white identity rather than incessantly critiqued and subverted it, but that ship had sailed. White Americans gave fealty to Jews in the 20th century, none was given in return. That's how it's supposed to work, you can't demand fealty and give none in return.

Do you support Jews having a Jewish identity? Is that good?

But now I just accept they are a political opposition, which is why this is an important issue, and when anon "dissidents" deny that it's an important issue it's a strong tell they are secretly Jewish.

If by political opposition, you mean across party lines, this is not necessary. Jews are trending conservative as secular Jews lose their Judaism and religious Jews are bearing more children, and after 10/7, many Jews are more wary of the left than before.

and when anon "dissidents" deny that it's an important issue it's a strong tell they are secretly Jewish.

A strong tell? Really?

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