site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26562 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 3, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Dreher's anecdotes about the wisdom of Communist East Europeans always reminds me of another group of Eastern Europeans moving to the US from the sphere of a totalitarian regime and suddenly finding themselves fearful about the signs of the same totalitarianism developing in the United States.

Come on, give us some substance so we can actually discuss it, if you find the comparison interesting.

Do they remind you of them in any substantial way or just in being from Eastern Europe, and claiming to be fearful about totalitarianism?

Well, to put it more specifically, the Frankfurt School - insofar as I've understood - was indeed heavily affected in their endeavors by the idea that the American society they had migrated to shared the same underlying problems and processes as Nazi Germany, and this also affected their work, i.e. they felt that they needed to abort these problems and processes from the get-go. This was, for instance, the reason for Adorno's work on the authoritarian personality. Presumably when you later had things like the McCarthy hearings this would only go to strengthen this mission

Of course, the problem is that they were hardly neutral arbiters but heavy ideologues themselves, which not only clouded their view on what the perceived commonalities of the American and German societies were (including what they missed, like the considerably stronger democratic underpinnings in US) and what the solutions would be. Their immigrant status did not really guarantee their expertise or the correctness of their views; in many ways it made them worse observers than those that did not have any personal experience of Nazi Germany at all.

Of course, the problem is that they were hardly neutral arbiters but heavy ideologues themselves

Right, that would be the issue with their analysis, rather than their immigrant status, or aspects of the American culture that they supposedly missed. If you're going to compare someone to the Frankfurt School, I'd guess most people are going to assume that this is what you're trying to say about the group you're comparing them to, which is why these sort of quippy "you know who this reminds me of? winkwinknudgenudge" comments aren't helpful.

And am I missing something or did your extended reply confirm you're only comparing them on superficial things like their region of origin, and complaining about authoritarianism? I don't see you making claims about their analysis, or mistakes they're making being similar.

What substance? The idea is to simply spoil the claim that ex-Communist Eastern Europeans have any wisdom, by connecting them to a disliked group. By the time anyone researches the disliked group, sees if their similarities are actually substantial or if there are significant differences, and posts a rebuttal of some sort, the conversation has moved on and no one cares any more.

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