site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   37152 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.

One of those memetic ironies: it's become de rigeur among the anti racist set to constantly identify oneself as white in a mildly ironic self effacing way. White boy summer, white girl wasted, I'm just an old white dude, they never should have let a white boy like me (x), white son in law energy. The identification is primarily negative, but mildly so.

Where when SA originally wrote his piece identifying as White was a red tribe affectation, today it might almost be more a blue tribe affectation to constantly go on about one's whiteness.

This does not, of course, preclude the affectation developing from irony to importance. Nor does it mean the event was real, it could quite easily be faked and reflect the tastes of just a handful of campaign staff.

Eh, Whitest Kids U Know was incredibly quotable to a certain age group, too.

Did social media let this sort of humor get a little closer to the people in power? Probably. Does it reflect an actual acceptance of identitarianism? Not so much.

Does it reflect an actual acceptance of identitarianism? Not so much.

There are very few groups more accepting of identitarianism than white progressives, and all the others are shunned from nearly all mainstream spaces (the remainder, like Banania, should be but are not, because the universe is fickle). They primarily approve of it for others, but they definitely approve of it.

The first two times I saw this was in the context of basketball: the title of the film “White Men Can’t Jump,” and Larry Bird in Space Jam being “clear” as a reference to WMCJ. (My mom still laughs every time.)

Where when SA originally wrote his piece identifying as White was a red tribe affectation, today it might almost be more a blue tribe affectation to constantly go on about one's whiteness.

Eh, identifying oneself as White is kinda blue, but 'is he White or Mexican/black/whatever' is a red tribe thing, and the expected answer if talking about a liberal White would be 'hipster' or something of that sort.

White boy summer, white girl wasted

These seem more apolitical. I suppose they’re vaguely left if only because zoomers are more left than the average of the rest of the population, but it’s not a huge tell politically.

The self deprecating nature of those statements is apolitical in the sense of it doesn't take a position on immigration reform or tax policy. But the self effacement excludes white identitarian politics. Which makes sense given Chet Hanks' well known love of miscegenation.

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