site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   37002 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 wonder if DEI is sometimes a scapegoat for a general slackening of standards and lessening of giving a F.

But then you have to ask what caused that slackening.

You could bring DEI back into the conversation and say that the need to deny that there is anything wrong with preferring "DEI hires" requires everyone to lower their standards so as not to make it too obvious what's going on.

This feels like there might be something to it but I could caution against taking up such a narrative too quickly. There are other options, such as mass affluence leading to a general slackening.

It's worth asking oneself, "How have I been part of the problem?" Did I prefer professors who "curved" my grades? Etc.

DEI is pernicious but it need not be the explanation for all observed incompetence.

Yes, I think affluence has a far more significant role in declining standards than DEI, the societal equivalent of “zero interest rates phenomena”. You can see similar declines in willingness to suffer for excellence in East Asian cultures (the “lying flat” movement in China, for example) and the decline in formal dress, neither of which are plausibly identified with DEI.

But I think this explanation also should make us wonder whether maybe it’s all for the best. Living has never been easier and appetites have never been more easily satisfied. Isn’t this what winning is supposed to look like?

appetites have never been more easily satisfied

What different worlds we live in. Not that I live in one where what you said isn't true; but I do live in one where this is not a good thing.

There are problems which, solved, make us better. There are also problems which, solved, make us worse.

I’ve often felt the same. The decline in standards started long before DEI existed— if you look at attitudes toward education and achievement, up until the 1950s it was just expected by society that you’d work hard in school and at your job. And I think a good chunk in the USA’s decline started with including ADA kids in mainstream classrooms. Because of that, they had to begin adjusting standards downward to allow kids with IQs in the 70s to graduate with the rest of their class. Add in the rise of the educational Karen who’s going to the principal to get her kid’s grade raised to preserve GPA and you just can’t keep standards high.

if you look at attitudes toward education and achievement, up until the 1950s it was just expected by society that you’d work hard in school and at your job.

Off the top of my head, I think Tom Sawyer demonstrates otherwise.

Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn were both written from the point of view of the children involved and as such do not make a good case for the adults of that era not caring about education or any ther opinion.

Agreed. The fifties are really a high point of American 'do what you're supposed to do' social conformity of the kind we associate with Japan, the nordics, etc today.

Amazing what happens when a bunch of young men come home with military discipline having been drilled into them. If only that didn't require, well you know

You can have conscription without a major war, even if it's not politically feasible.

Isn’t this what winning is supposed to look like?

No. Winning is supposed to look like getting an increase in resources and abilities, allowing you to tackle even more difficult challenges, ad infinitum.

The shonen manga conception of winning, perhaps. I think, more generally, "winning" is just simply conquering some barrier or challenge, and hopefully leaving said barrier/challenge behind.

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