site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   38610 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 15, 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.

I was like look, MLK got civil rights done at the end of the day, not the Black Panthers. He still sort of thinks that whites needed to be 'scared' into it, but I strongly disagree. It was getting moderate whites on board by emphasizing our shared humanity and showing a human face to the suffering. Things like Selma, you know? Hard to ignore.

Yeah sorry, whatever your brother said about how the “Civil Rights” movement won its political gains is almost guaranteed to be more historically accurate than the extremely sanitized, simplified, mythologized version you’ve presented here. If this is the narrative you need to believe in to allow yourself to decry political violence and seek conciliation, then by all means please continue to believe in it. But it doesn’t actually bear much resemblance to the nitty-gritty details of how that particular sausage got made at the time.

They all played some part of course, that’s just the sausage of history indeed. But man, the 60s were ugly. BLM and a single assassination attempt is tame by comparison. Apparently the message LBJ used to carry the portion of Southern senators needed to break the filibuster was the basic idea “better you now than someone more radical later” - so the framing of people seeing some sort of racial equality effort being law was seen as inevitable, make of that what you will. But there’s at least some mainstream thought such as some research here including citations in the intro that suggests nonviolent protests were associated with both successful campaigns and shift in vote share more often and more strongly than violent ones. Of course, a funny fact is that at least per the polls, a good chunk of people thought the March on Washington even was counter-productive. MLK wasn’t actually super cuddly and moderate, he was dedicated to making whites feel uncomfortable, but there’s a difference between that kind of “troublemaking” and the more violent kind, even if you might plausibly call both radical or even maybe extremist.

But at the end of the day it was white politicians giving more advanced civil rights to Black people.

But there’s at least some mainstream thought such as some research here including citations in the intro that suggests nonviolent protests were associated with both successful campaigns and shift in vote share more often and more strongly than violent ones.

Nonviolent protests, especially back then, ran under good cop/bad cop where the violent protests made the nonviolent ones effective.

There's also the fact that "nonviolent" and "doesn't cause harm" aren't the same thing. Protests in the 60s were absolutely meant to cause harm to members of the outgroup. Telling your employer that you tweeted in support of assassination is a nonviolent protest (and so is firing someone for that tweet).

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