site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   37178 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 22, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I love seeing the flip side of the Law of Merited Impossibly coin.

The "Law of Merited Impossibility" can be summarized as: "It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it." This phrase captures the idea that those advocating for certain social changes often dismiss concerns about potential negative consequences by asserting that such outcomes are impossible. However, if those feared outcomes do come to pass, they are then justified as deserved by those who opposed the changes.

I'm beginning to find my purpose on the Motte.

I'm glad you're having fun.

But I can't tell what you mean, and I think it would be a better comment if you spoke clearly. Perhaps there's some parallel in Derek Jeter's life you could use as a metaphor.

The Law of Merited Impossibility is usually defined as "it will never happen and it's a good thing it did" and is usually (here, at least) invoked against the Dems/Left, the Motte posters implying that the left claims there's no intention to genocide whites while cheering for reduced white percentages (for example).

I'm assuming FiveHourMarathon means to say that in a very similar way, the reactionary right claims that they do not seek to oppress women, only to restore them to their "good and natural role", while on Jim's blog they relate women to livestock.

Do admitted neoreactionaries actually claim they don't want to oppress women? And do normal tradcons claim women are cattle?

The answer to both questions would seem to be no. Harrison Butker didn't say women were cattle; he said being a stay at home mom was more valuable than having a career. And the dreaded Jim just openly admits that he thinks women need domestic violence to keep them in line.

the dreaded Jim

Quick aside but how old is Jim do we think? Is there a general best guess? According to something I read somewhere he has been pontificating about how much all the groups of people he hates are bad and responsible for all the problems in the world since at least the mid 1990s. Its insane to me that he may be in his 70s or even 80s and still doing this. If I could find a woman who loves me the way Jim hates women and black people I would be very happy.

I could find a woman who loves me the way Jim hates women and black people I would be very happy.

Gotta start using this- I’d previously used ‘find you someone who looks at you the way Bob menendez looks at foreign bribes’.

The only problem there is that your pool of people who would get that reference is limited to /pol/ and this forum.

The invokers of the Law of Merited Impossibility rarely bother to check whether the people saying the two contradictory things are actually the same people, in my experience.

Perhaps there's some parallel in Derek Jeter's life you could use as a metaphor.

I'm flattered you pay this much attention to my comments.

You write well.

I've figured out the Derek Jeter parallel!

From 1996-2003, the Yankees won four world series and two other pennants. They had the highest payroll in the game, and were frequently criticized for buying championships. But, Yankees fans protested, Jeter and Posada and Williams and Pettite and Rivera were all farmhands, the Yankees had really developed their way to a championship. Then in 2009, the Yankees incontestably and openly bought a championship, signing big time free agents who lead the way. Still, the Core Four of it all, but it's tough for any fan not to admit some truth to those allegations.

Similarly, right wingers get accused of misogyny all the time. For every policy choice, even if supported by many women, probably for drinking Diet Mountain Dew. I'm used to dismissing it.And normally it's bullshit. But then you see a post like /u/erwgv3g34 above, and it is the real honest-to-goodness article, self-justifying its own hatred by the Law of Merited Impossibility. The wokie says: "Nobody is getting fired for not going to a mandatory Diversity training, that isn't happening; but the fact that you're so upset about this shows how important a Mandatory Diversity Training is, in fact you probably shouldn't be employed if you find that objectionable." This comment says: "Women are too stupid, cow-like herd animals, to understand politics. You can tell because when they try to do politics, they don't understand how stupid and cow-like they are." It's rare to see it in the wild, because typically online the demand for crazed misogyny outstrips the supply, but it's tough to deny on that one.

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