site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   37719 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 8, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That's fine. Participating someplace where a significant minority of the community care about nothing but digging through old grievances every time I post gets old very, very fast, and there's not really a point to beating around the bush on that.

You just spent weeks digging through old grievances dating back a decade, and then made it a top-level post about it. On multiple websites, even.

Yes, I realize that you feel yours are important and valid and other peoples are beneath acknowledgement, but this is part of why you are getting pushback from people with longer memories of your past conduct.

Once, this forum meant a great deal to me, and many of the individuals on it still mean a lot to me, but the space as a whole lost the mandate of heaven long ago despite your own good work and the good work of the other mods.

In the past couple of months, I've met more than a dozen motte users I read avidly, respect, and have fond memories of in real life, at several events tied to this broader community. Almost none of them post here anymore. The Motte had a good run and contains a lot of good memories, but for all practical purposes, I think its run is over. Here’s to a glorious diaspora.

I encourage those of you who enjoy what I have to say to join me on Twitter or elsewhere. At this point, the conversations there are richer, the community there healthier, and participation there is more meaningful than it is here, and I have very little to gain from kicking around someplace where some 1/4 of the userbase want it to be crystal clear that they loathe me every time I post. There was a time this was the best discussion space online, but that time has passed and it's time for relics like me to move on.

How can it be a glorious diaspora if you keep coming back after denouncing it?

This isn't your first flounce. You came back after establishing the Schism, you came back after Liberals of TikTok, you came back after the site switch, and probably several more breaks I'm not recalling offhand. Between the recruitment attempts and the self-promotion efforts but also just to discuss emerging and contemporary news, you never stay away for terribly long. In much the same one that one is not stuck in traffic, but a part of the traffic, you are (still) a Mottizan.

You may leave for awhile, and all the longer for it being called out on it, but you'll return as you have multiple times before.

All the best.

Until you come back again, and not just for the last words tonight or tomorrow.

I think it's misleading to call it "old grievances dating back a decade" when it's ongoing behavior that began a decade ago.

Just as it's misleading to dismiss criticisms Tracing's conduct during and since the LibOfTikTok affair as old grudge, given that a part of the bad behavior was the non-repentance, which is itself ongoing behavior.

This is a critique of argument structure, specifically why the defense of Tracing has to retreat from a motte-offense of categories of unacceptable behavior (the categories of bad behavior which is the subject of condemnation in the slam-pieces) to a bailey-defense of degrees and relativism (ongoing behavior is not a big deal because the other party is so much worse). The counter to a relativism-motte retreat is to reject the redefinition of standards and re-emphasize the original standards being used in the bailey-argument, which was itself categorical.

'My opponent is a [category = bad]' is not enough of an argument when one is also part of [category], and retreating later to 'My opponent is a [category=me=bad, but them > me]' after making the first argument is just a retreat to special pleading as to why the initial categorical argument isn't important after all. Similarly, defenses on a category level aren't really defenses if the category is also shared.

This is relevant to not only rhetorical arguments intended to convince people to feel something (such as that the target of a piece deserves opposition/resistance), but also to contemporary culture war politics. It's a significant factor as to why years of attempts to condemn Donald Trump on categorical accusations fall flats- Donald Trump is a serial liar/exaggerator, but so are his presidential opponents, and retreats to relativism and re-definition after the fact undercut the credibility of the opening. We've seen this in things like MeToo, when the movement was broadly signal-boosted by the Democratic Party when it was starting, but then not-so-slowly dropped when it became clear the standards were goring Democratic icons as much or more than the Republicans. And for the Republicans, this was a common failure state of those Republican politicians who would categorically condemn same-sex relationships, before they were found to be having a same-sex side-piece. It didn't matter whether they were having less gay sex than their political opponents- it mattered that, having made a categorical moral condemnation, they were doing it at all.

There are absolutely ways to condemn vices one also shares, but from a structural argument perspective, part of that requires not adopting overly-broad categorical moral condemnations (or defenses). You can do more tailored categories that build-in exonerating contexts (killing is bad, unless in self-defense), or start from a position of relativity (I'm bad, but this is worse), or even as position of human failure versus intent (I struggle and fail, but they don't even try). You can even strip the moral condemnation from the argument, so that more neutral framings let an audience come to a conclusion on their own rather than lead them to it by the nose via early and often use of pejoratives.

Okay, I'm not 100% sure what you're saying here, but none of it seems to have anything to do with what I said on the object level.

Just as it's misleading to dismiss criticisms Tracing's conduct during and since the LibOfTikTok affair as old grudge, given that a part of the bad behavior was the non-repentance, which is itself ongoing behavior.

So...? That's not a counterargument. Misleading comments or misleading articles don't justify misleading responses here. An ongoing problem is not an old grievance.

And Tracingwoodgrains's continual denial that they did anything morally or ethically wrong with the LibsOnTikTok is an ongoing problem is an ongoing problem, and one they and their defenders have tried to dismiss on the accusation that the issue is nothing more than an old grievance others are raising.

The point isn't that the subject of the slam piece is not an ongoing problem- the point is that it's not the only ongoing problem. Both actions can be wrong, and both can be ongoing, and both can have dated back years, but only one side has trying to dismiss criticism on the grounds of 'old grievance.'

This is special pleading. 'Old grievance' applies to both equally whether that's equally well or equally badly, and so either an ongoing problem cannot be dismissed as merely an old-grievance (which seems to be your perspective), in which case Tracing's defense argument is undercut, or ongoing problems can be dismissed on grounds of old-grievance, in which case Tracing's post can be dismissed on the same grounds.

So you agree that your comment is misleading...? Like, I'm not talking about Tracing here. I don't know why you are.

You just spent weeks digging through old grievances dating back a decade

Either it is an old grievance or it is an ongoing problem. Whatever Tracing wrote has no impact on this.

So you agree that your comment is misleading...?

Are you unfamiliar with the rhetorical technique of demonstrating the flaws in another's argument by using it against them?

Like, I'm not talking about Tracing here. I don't know why you are.

Because you are replying to a post that was about Tracing, about an argument Tracing used, which was using Tracing's argument against them to demonstrate why Tracing's argument was a flawed.

If you are not talking about Tracing here, you are not talking about the topic.

Either it is an old grievance or it is an ongoing problem. Whatever Tracing wrote has no impact on this.

What Trace wrote has a direct impact on this, because the line was specifically pulled from Tracing's own defense.

Yes, I realize that you feel yours are important and valid and other peoples are beneath acknowledgement, but this is part of why you are getting pushback from people with longer memories of your past conduct.

Though he is getting pushback on something completely unrelated to the current post, purely because people are still holding grudges. I mean, this isn't the first time Trace has posted something since the whole LoTT affair, and while people sometimes bring it up (as people do - a lot of people here hold grudges against a lot of other posters), most people don't feel a need to snigger "Hey, what about that time you pranked LibsOfTikTok?" every time he posts.

@HRSCCK (an obvious alt spun up for such shit-stirring) started this with an unnecessary dig. When even @gattsuru tells you you're being petty, that's something.

Why do you believe Woodgrains pushback is based on things completely unrelated to the current post?

Tracingwoodgrains condemnations of Gerard include both explicit and implicit themes that Gerard is malicious, deceptive, dishonest, and taking exceptional effort in order to negatively shape others perceptions of his political opponents. The evidence of this goes back years, more than a decade ago. This is presented as to be contemptable, especially as he is unrepentant, a critic of this community, and doing this in obvious self-interest (in this case, ideological).

Tracingwoodgrain's LibsOfTikTok hoax was also malicious, deceptive, dishonest, and took exceptional effort in order to negatively shape others perceptions of his political opponent. The evidence of this goes back years, not even half a decade ago. Tracingwoodgrains is also unrepentent, a critic of this community, and doing this in obvious self-interest (in this case, self-publicity).

There is the surface-level subject of a post, and the meta-level subject of what a poster likes to talk about or return to. Woodgrain's thesis lacks sting or sincerity when its themes are things he is likewise guilty of (of kind if not degree), and noting this when he attempts to assert a moral high ground is not merely a matter of grudges, but of topling the meta-positioning of the argument.

And that pushback in turn revealed relevant context via the response- Tracing went from pejoratively opening his characterization with 'longtime malicious critic of this community' to a blistering 'screw you' burnout rant and posts about how bad this community had been for a long time. This is relevant information for the current post. It reveals not only information about the viewpoint biases of the author (by reminding otherwise-ignorant readers of narrator similarities with the subject of condemnation), but it revealed previously hidden information (the private views the writer has of his audience).

Why do you believe Woodgrains pushback is based on things completely unrelated to the current post?

Bluntly, because who, whom? Trace made a fool of someone his detractors approve of because she mocks people they hate. And while I don't approve of what he did (and I said so at the time), let's be real here - pranking a noted Internet bombthrower whose entire schtick is nutpicking people on TikTok to point and laugh at (and try to get fired) is not the same as what David Gerard is accused of doing over the course of years. You act like this was some great moral failing instead of an ill-considered Opie & Anthony-level stunt.

As for being a critic of this community, yeah, and we get criticized from the opposite direction by the past denizens of that other great abandoned wasteland of Motte expats, CWR. Some of whom crawled back here and continue to lob the same whining complaints. This is not the first time Trace has criticized this community and talked about his complicated relationship with it, but I don't think what he's said is at all comparable to David Gerard's active hostility and malice.

I agree with you that Trace should stop flouncing, and grow a thicker skin.

You seem to be conflating my views on Woodgrains (which you almost certainly don't know) with the views of others (some of whom you certainly aren't accurately reflecting).

completely unrelated

Maybe to you. But to others it's relevant when someone writes a magnum opus about the immorality of the deception of a certain person, when they have also proudly engaged in deception.

If there is a fair criticism in there somewhere along the lines of "Who are you to be criticizing David Gerard when you do the same thing?" I haven't really seen it. All I am seeing it "Oh, nice story, by the way, fuck you for that time you pranked Libs of TikTok." I mean, speaking of who?whom?, you'd gushing all over this story except that you apparently hate Trace more than you hate David Gerard.

I haven't really seen it

Then you must be trying not to. I don't know how it could be stated more clearly. It wasn't exactly my opener, but I got to it quickly.

Emphasis on fair. I see the attempts at equivalences. I don't find them convincing. He's certainly being accused of hypocrisy, but nothing he's done is akin to what David Gerard is accused of doing.

  • -11

Well, luckily it's for each of us to determine fairness. And frankly, hiding behind "Hahah, I said nobody fairly compared Tracing to David" is some pretty pedantic Jiu Jitsu to pretend the things that were clearly and concisely expressed were not. It's a way of laundering you disagreement into a record of fact about what was or wasn't said.

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