site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   35889 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 3, 2022

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.

24
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm not asking you to take back anything. It's nice on the rare occasions that someone realizes they were wrong and acknowledges it, but that almost never happens. What I'm asking you to do is amend your behavior going forward, and spelling out the consequences if you refuse to do so.

I understand and respect your commitment to this community's historical traditions; it has always been more important to come down on calling out bad faith than to come down on the bad faith itself. Nerd spaces seem doomed to this particular dementation.

As someone who also honors the traditions of his people, however, I must insist on not letting such things fly. If our traditions must conflict, I resign myself to the tragic consequences.

  • -10

As someone who also honors the traditions of his people

Bro you’re getting seething mad at an internet mod, you can drop the macho trad act for a second

I'm not mad or trad, though.

it has always been more important to come down on calling out bad faith than to come down on the bad faith itself

No, that's not it.

Besides the fact that you're just being a jerk, I also think you're flat-out wrong. I'd have modded you regardless (for personal antagonism), but @Stefferi has been around a while and has more credibility than you do, and what I saw was him questioning the idea that it's ahistorical for there to be black Chicago gangsters. Yes, I understand that you assume that we are talking about, specifically, African-American members of the Chicago Mob, which would in fact be ahistorical, but that is not obvious to me (I haven't even seen the damn show), and it is even less obvious to me that @Stefferi is engaged in bad faith and "pretending to be dense" when he points out that there were in fact black gangs and black organized crime in Chicago.

You could have had a productive discussion about whether this was an ahistorical blooper, but instead, because you think the traditions of your people give you extra Internet points if you "win" an argument by calling people names and insisting everyone making an argument you disagree with is doing so in bad faith, here we are. You think you're making a mighty principled stand shaking your fist at the heavens, and you're actually being petulant and childish.

The post Stefferi replied to explicitly identifies the Chicago mafia and mobsters multiple times as the subject in question in the opening sentences. The study Steffri subsequently linked to to support this was titled "The Black Mafia". Its abstract explicitly claims blacks played a vital role as members of the Chicago Outfit. The Chicago Outfit is a proper noun and refers specifically to the Italian-American organized crime family known to most as "the mob" or "the mafia".

Stefferi was not confused. His own fucking source shows he knew the quibble was "black mafioso", not "black criminality". He was being snide. God, why did you have to mod here, too.

The post Stefferi replied to explicitly identifies the Chicago mafia and mobsters multiple times as the subject in question in the opening sentences

Really? Okay, let's take a look:

I recently watched "The Outfit," which was a pretty well done mystery/thriller set amongst 1950's Chicago gangsters. Also an Amazon production.

Late in the film a group that had previously only been referred to by name shows up, and they're black. The characters are still interesting, central to the plot, well-acted, etc. But knowing Amazon's diversity rules, it kind of breaks the fourth wall. I know of no notable group of black Chicago mobsters during this era. I do know about Amazon's rules. So, this probably wasn't an independent artistic decision, but rather the result of those rules.

"Chicago gangsters" and "black Chicago mobsters" is vague and generic. Maybe in the context of the show, they really did make a bunch of black guys members of The Outfit. But that is not in evidence here.

You are, flatly, wrong.

Stefferi was not confused. His own fucking source shows he knew the quibble was "black mafioso", not "black criminality". He was being snide.

Not in evidence. Your projections.

God, why did you have to mod here, too.

You make it all worthwhile.

For what it's worth I also interpreted it as referring to just some group of black organized criminals, not the literal Italian mafia. It's been my understanding that "mobsters", "mob", even "Mafia" etc can refer to a variety of ethnic organized criminal groups ("Jewish Mob", "Armenian Mafia" etc.)

You are, flatly, wrong.

No, I am correct. What you quoted supports me: "The Outfit", "1950's Chicago gangsters", "black Chicago mobsters".

It's not ambiguous. If you thought it was, that is a failure on your end, not OP's.

Not in evidence. Your projections.

If you want to play judge, put on your red hat and practice. Lord knows you could use it.

You make it all worthwhile.

Wish I could say the same, but the mods have always been the worst part of the community.

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