site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   37978 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.

I'd argue it depends what you mean by appeasement. Back home significant concessions were made to Catholics including dismantling and replacing the entire police force with one that had 50% Catholics ( an over representation), quotas in government jobs etc. Parades commissions to limit where Unionists could march and much more.

Is that appeasement or is it recognizing that building trust with a group that has actually been oppressed requires steps if you actually want a chance at building a lasting peace after?

All the things you mention are appeasement.

But time and experience has taught me I was wrong. Rapprochement is possible even with violent history. It does not have to be oppositional.

As long as black people can obtain more by refusing to consider rapproachment and instead using past grievances (and present ones, real or imagined) to successfully demand continued special treatment, they will. I am not sure racial rapproachment is even possible; Jefferson may have been half-right when he said white people would never accept black people and black people would never forgive white people. But even if he wasn't, it sure won't be accomplished by white politicans and activists acting as if white people deserve disapprobation from black people.

All the things you mention are appeasement.

Then peace is never going to be possible in your paradigm. I prefer one that concretely offers that hope, and has shown that it can deliver.

Peace is possible, but it requires that black people give up their grievances. If they will not, then it is not; white people yielding more will not help.

but it requires that black people give up their grievances

Sure, but that is a step by step process and at a population level not so easy. People do not just give up their grievances. But they can be put in a position where other things are more valuable. Self-interest is the only cure that sticks I think. As Catholics became wealthier, were given the opportunities to make up for those they had been denied, became more aware that the government bodies that had specifically oppressed them were now more responsive to them, all of a sudden support for the IRA began to disappear.

Until Sinn Fein itself decided the way forward had to be through democracy, as support for violence was drying up. But you can't keep things the same and think that is going to work. It clearly hasn't.

Hell, they didn't even have to actually make things equitable, they just had to say they were going to try and make some good faith efforts. As the Catholic Middle class began to rise, that did the rest.

Sure, but that is a step by step process and at a population level not so easy.

All the recent steps have been backwards. What we're doing isn't working.

People do not just give up their grievances.

Certainly not if it's in their interests to hold on to them.

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