site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   29977 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 1, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Freddie's not wrong, but I find him endlessly tiresome and miserable. He constantly gropes for the truth and almost seems to grasp it, and then hastily backs away as if it burned his fingers. Every time I read one of his essays, I think "You've almost got it" and then he swerves and ostentatiously clears his throat to make sure no one thinks he's suggesting non-leftists might ever be right about something.

This is not particularly charitable to Freddie.

The worst case was him deleting his most popular substacks, "Please Just Fucking Tell Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand" and "Of Course You Know What 'Woke' Means", because conservatives found his arguments good and started linking them. He seems afraid to be seen building bridges with non-fellow travelers, even when their interests and beliefs align with the old-style left perfectly.

Doesn't one need to keep in mind that he's legitimately a crazy person? He might fear getting too much attention from the wrong people when he looks at the results.

What were the actual sharings-in-bad-faith or misrepresentations that he was worried about?

Was it only that right-wing people shared them as well, or did right-wingers understand the meanings of those posts in a different way to deBoer?

Pretty sure it was basically that right wingers were sharing it around as a good anti-woke rant, and Freddie was dismayed that his enemies were using his words as ammunition against leftists (even leftists he himself was attacking).

What were the actual sharings-in-bad-faith or misrepresentations that he was worried about?

He never offered any explanation to my best research. About a year ago he updated the first essay with "I beg you to read anything else I've written other than this piece. I beg you", followed by deletion in December.

Are those Archive links he links to in his Substack faithful to his original postings or have they been selectively editor prior to archival?

You can see every version captured by IA. Scott used to neuter pieces with edits before removing them entirely, so it's worth checking out the earliest archived version and comparing it to the latest

This is Freddie deBoer.

But yes, I've noticed Scott editing old posts to remove the best parts. He speaks some truth that conservatives appreciate. Then edits it out because he thinks they are icky or correctly determines that his social group won't appreciate him handing ammo to the other side.

Also he edited out the Ben Carson brain surgery question. About how Ben Carson pioneered a new procedure to separate the two halves of the brain in children with extreme seizures. But then left the other half still alive in their head unconnected to their senses and frontal lobe. Is that a (part of a) person suffering in dark silence for a lifetime? I thought that was a good question and am disappointed that he edited it out.

I know, I mean Scott used to do it too. They have very similar temporary failures of their Crimestop brain implants, followed by repentance and attempts to hide the evidence.

Also he edited out the Ben Carson brain surgery question.

Huh? https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/11/16/hardball-questions-for-the-next-debate/

Maybe he did edit it out and then restored it, but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that he'd be worried could get him in trouble.

He edited out the follow-up question about the kaballistic implications.

Yes, he's not going to get in trouble for that. I thought he removed it because it is disturbing.

TBH it is disturbing and I think the answer would be yes.

Are those Archive links he links to in his Substack faithful to his original postings?

Unless he's in cahoots with archive.org, they must be. And the content doesn't seem different from what I remember.

I guess he should be applauded for giving a link, at least, even if he refuses to put the arguments under his own name for some reason.

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