site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   28099 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You seem to be arguing that it's a barber pole. I'm pretty sure it's not a barber pole. There is going to be significantly less trust in our institutions six months from now than there was six months ago. Political division and social polarization will be significantly worse. There's a pretty clear trend here, and sooner or later that trend is going to run out of road.

There is going to be significantly less trust in our institutions six months from now than there was six months ago.

Again, "the institutions" don't need "trust," they only need obedience. And to get that, you need only escalate punishments for disobedience until every single person is either compliant or dead.

Political division and social polarization will be significantly worse.

So what? Increasing division and distinction between the two sides doesn't change which one is vastly stronger than the other, and thus which tribe is pretty much guaranteed to triumph.

There's a pretty clear trend here, and sooner or later that trend is going to run out of road.

And at the end of that road, the triumphant Blues completely erase the Red Tribe (as a culture) from the earth forever.

Edit: as further support, I'd like to add this quote from Michael Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority:

I have suggested in this chapter that human beings come equipped with strong and pervasive pro-authority biases that operate even when an authority is illegitimate or issues illegitimate and indefensible commands. As we have see, individuals confronted with the demands of authority figures are liable to feel an almost unconditional compulsion to obey, and this may prompt them to look for explanations for why the authority is legitimate and why they are morally required to obey. People often defer instinctively to those who wield power, and there are even cases in which people emotionally bond with others (such as kidnappers) who hold great but completely unjustified power over them, adopting the perspective and goals of those who hold the power. Once a pattern of obedience has started, the need to minimize cognitive dissonance favors continued obedience and the adoption of beliefs that rationalize the authority’s commands and one’s own obedience to them. Due to a general status quo bias, once a practice or institution becomes established in some society, that practice is likely to be viewed by members of that society, almost automatically, as normal, right, and good.

None of this by itself shows that existing political institutions are illegitimate. But it strongly suggests that they would be widely accepted as legitimate even if they were not. Theories of authority devised by political philosophers can plausibly be viewed as attempts to rationalize common intuitions about the need for obedience, where these intuitions are the product of systematic biases.

You seem to be arguing that it's a barber pole. I'm pretty sure it's not a barber pole.

I'm not even sure what the barber pole represents.

It's the election theft being discounted as a minor offence compared to yonder verdict that prompted my comment.

not even sure what the barber pole represents.

Shorthand for something that's always arriving and never arrives. See also: Shephard Tone.

I'm arguing that this pattern does arrive. People react to each successive event differently. At each event, some portion lose faith in the system. I'm saying they don't appear to get it back, and so the portion gets larger over time, driving the increasing extremism of our political culture. At some point, that portion hits critical mass, and then things go badly. We will be significantly closer to critical mass in six months than we were six months ago.

At some point, that portion hits critical mass, and then things go badly.

And I still have little idea what this is supposed to look like, and everything that's suggested seems rather implausible to me. The only remotely plausible "critical mass" outcome, in my view, is a parallel to the German Peasants' War; and even that requires a level of unrest I find implausible. A bunch of Wacos and Oklahoma Cities — the latter followed by prosecutions and crackdowns — seems more likely.

"Not with a bang, but a whimper" and all that.

Less trust on the right, more trust on the left... but the right is dying, so that's more trust overall.

There is going to be significantly less trust in our institutions six months from now than there was six months ago.

This seems inevitable, sadly. I don't expect fireworks, but I do expect a lot more quiet quitting. Cops stop enforcing the law, people stop joining the military, that sort of thing.

Instead of focusing on what's best for the country, interest groups will fight to get handouts. In fact we're already seeing that with the student loan bailouts.

Cops stop enforcing the law, people stop joining the military, that sort of thing.

So you just replace them with people who will.

I'm reminded of when Curtis Yarvin was on the Good Ol' Boyz podcast some time ago, where he first claimed that he "loves the 'chuds'," but then went on to argue that those same Red Tribe chuds are "worse than Morlocks" because the Eloi at least needed the Morlocks to maintain the machinery that supported their comfortable lifestyles, while "you can be entirely replaced with immigrants and automation," and just who do you think he was talking about warehousing in the Matrix in his "Virtual Option"?

And if you stop working, people eventually stop paying you, and then how do you keep your family fed and a roof over their heads?

Agree. Once you decide the ship really is going down, you stop showing up to fix the leaks and keeping the rudder straight .... and just start looting the supply stocks, picking out your life raft, and hope some ditzy redhead leaves you some room on the door.

My thoughts exactly. Defection may be about to get a lot more popular. I think it did after 2020, too.

Defection may be about to get a lot more popular.

Defection to where, exactly? And why would they want said "defector" anyway?

Defection against the common weal. One's fellow Americans.

Defection against the common weal. One's fellow Americans.

Oh, "defection" in the prisoner's dilemma sense, not "defection" in the "Soviet defecting to America" sense. That makes a little more sense.

But I don't see it mattering all that much, except seeing conditions for the average person decline while elites remain insulated from it all. As other people have noted, one can live a fully "first world" lifestyle in even pretty terrible "third world" countries, provided you're rich enough — the latter gets you cheaper servants, even. So plenty of people at the top will see nothing change even while life continues to get even worse for the rest of us.

Christ, I miss the Cold War

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