site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   33914 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 29, 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.

"White dudes for Harris" is a decline in both premises you mention, though:

It is appealing to the white identity of white men rather than just demanding pure intersectionality, in a way that does go beyond simply ranking white men as the worst in the progressive stack:

“Throughout American history, when white men organized, it was often with pointy hats on,” said Rocketto before he added how proud he was of this group of white men, who he said are too rarely heard from.

Actor Jeff Bridges, who played “The Dude” in the cult classic “The Big Lebowski,” was excited when he heard about the gathering of his fellow white dudes.

“I qualify, man! I’m white, I’m a dude, and I’m for Harris,” Bridges said. “A woman president, man, how exciting!”

So we've gone from "white men cannot organize, to identify as a white man is either silly or vehemently immoral" to The Dude and other celebrities saying "I'm white, cool I can participate in this event for white men!" Now it's a political reality acknowledged by the Harris campaign- and not by the Trump campaign or Republican party, I might add.

True, the actual content and movement is not pro-white, but it's an introduction of White Identity politics to polite society and that's a significant change which will most likely continue as white people become "just another" demographic in our democracy. This George Floyd "white people are evil" peak-wokeness is not going to be permanent.

It's another example of "The Liberals" leading the Conservatives by the nose. The Liberals dragged the Conservative movement towards no acknowledgement for the actual interests of White people, and now that Liberals are acknowledging white people we may see the Republican party do the same. In all the Conservative thrashing over Wokeness they never did the actual transgressive thing, which would have been to directly appeal to white people like Harris is doing now. They fundamentally respect that boundary and will respect the new boundaries put in place by "The Liberals."

Identity politics typically don't involve the group actively advocating against their own group's interests.

There have been plenty of anti-White struggle session groups, maybe this is the most prominent but I don't think it's anything totally new.

This George Floyd "white people are evil" peak-wokeness is not going to be permanent.

He literally can’t make his pitch for this group without reminding us how evil white dudes are by saying

”Throughout American history, when white men organized, it was often with pointy hats on," said Rocketto

This is the usual “We’re so sorry” organizing of whites

It is appealing to the white identity of white men rather than just demanding pure intersectionality, in a way that does go beyond simply ranking white men as the worst in the progressive stack:

“Throughout American history, when white men organized, it was often with pointy hats on,” said Rocketto before he added how proud he was of this group of white men, who he said are too rarely heard from.

That's not going beyond the progressive stack, that's temporarily rearranging the order. It's the whole beauty of it, you can promote / demote client groups depending on what's necessary in the moment. In this case it's made pretty clear this particular group isn't even being given any amount of respect, they're just loosening the leash a little - they're explicitly warning you that if you even think of getting too uppity, you'll be thrown in the "pointy hats" bag.

they're explicitly warning you that if you even think of getting too uppity, you'll be thrown in the "pointy hats" bag.

Yes, this is what they are doing. With Peak Woke they oscillated between "White identity is the most evil thing in the world" and "there's no such thing as White people". Now they are "ok you can identify as white in a positive regard as long as it is to support our campaign, otherwise you are the KKK." But there's an important difference between those two positions, with the latter position being much weaker than the former position, and more indicative of a future White Identity Politics.

With Peak Woke they oscillated between "White identity is the most evil thing in the world" and "there's no such thing as White people". Now they are "ok you can identify as white in a positive regard as long as it is to support our campaign, otherwise you are the KKK." But there's an important difference between those two positions, with the latter position being much weaker than the former position, and more indicative of a future White Identity Politics.

No, it's really not, and it requires to thinks so requires a singular obsession with white identity. They do this stuff all the time, they used to tell women that they're on top of the world, until Women+ came along. The thing is you're not even being offered anything all that hot. They're not telling you you're going to be on top of the stack - you're still at the bottom, but maybe the boot won't press so hard, if you behave.

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