site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   34134 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.

I mean, I'm progressive and I acknowledge the nuance in gender and race issues in our country. Race isn't a monolith. Gender is not a monolith. I would reject any fellow progressive's premise that every white person is inherently racist and that every man is anti-feminist, simply because there is a non-zero amount of white people who aren't racist and a non-zero amount of men who are anti-feminist. There are white people on the right who aren't racist, there are Black people on the left who are racist. There are conservative feminist men and liberal misogynist men. There are non-straight conservative black men, and straight, liberal white men.

The list goes on. People don't ever fit neatly into specific boxes. The whole point of progressivism, to me, is to allow for intersectionality so we can have collective conversations about how to make our country better.

The list goes on. People don't ever fit neatly into specific boxes. The whole point of progressivism, to me, is to allow for intersectionality so we can have collective conversations about how to make our country better.

Could you say more about how you believe intersectionality contributes to this? It doesn't seem obvious to me that such useful conversations are in any way impaired without it. It even seems like it could actively contribute to putting people into their intersectional "box," rather than allowing them to, well, not fit into a specific box and have their specific individual experience valued as such.

Sure. Intersectionality affirms the lived experiences of every stakeholder in a decision-making process. While there could certainly be overlap, even a large overlap, between two different people's shared experiences, it is important to also seek out the nuances that make them different.

Race isn't a monolith... white people... Black people

Oh really?

I dont think I can recall a more transparently racist, or at least racially monolithic movement than this particular push by the swap creatures infesting the halls of Big Journalism than this particular quirk. We must always capitalize "Black" to denote their universally shared identity and experiences, but "white" people are normal, default, boring individualists who dont share a common identity? Thats not me exaggerating, thats straight from the AP Style guide. Its tranparently divisive and racist, and also hilariously ignorant of ethnic relations within Africa proper.

If you want me to believe you dont see race as a monolith, dont treat it like one. Assuming all black people share experiences because of their skin color is peak whitey guilt.

If I didn't capitalize the word "black" in my sentence, there could be people here who would demand I capitalize it. What would you have me do?

Also, from the link you provided:

After a review and period of consultation, we found, at this time, less support for capitalizing white. White people generally do not share the same history and culture, or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color. In addition, AP is a global news organization and there is considerable disagreement, ambiguity and confusion about whom the term includes in much of the world.

It would appear that this decision made by the AP wasn't just something they decided out-of-the-blue. They sought guidance, they considered it, and decided that for now, this is the best way to handle it.

  • -13

First, thank you for participating here as a self-identified progressive. Good luck, hope you enjoy your time.

It would appear that this decision made by the AP wasn't just something they decided out-of-the-blue.

It's very easy to rewrite the AP's style decision as incredibly anti-black racist without actually changing its reasoning: "After a period of review, we found that white people are just too diverse to comprehend as a single group. Black people, on the other hand, are basically all the same no matter where they're from or what their culture is. They are defined primarily by their melanin and whether or not white people (an undefined group) have been racist against them."

It's wildly racist against basically everyone, and manages to center white people in the process of of supposedly supporting black people. It's blatantly absurd and narcissistic.

When arguments are made in favor of Black for the group also known as Americans Descendants of Slavery, as a culturally-distinct group from African-Americans being either new immigrants or those with recently immigrated ancestry, that makes sense. On similar grounds White could make sense as a term for us pan-European mutts with no connection to ancestral lands. Personally, I'd prefer both groups just be "American," but the powers that be don't seem too happy with that. But Black as a term that spans from an American whose ancestors were forced here 300 years ago, and somebody like Mswati III? Balderdash.

If I didn't capitalize the word "black" in my sentence, there could be people here who would demand I capitalize it.

Welcome to theMotte! For the record, there are effectively no such people here. SJ's tolerated here, but trying to impose SJ on others would get a dogpile and possibly even moderator action - as there's a little moderator action here against people demanding you stop using SJ terms.

Basically, the moderation here is quite neutral but the commentariat leans heavily to the "right" of politics - there are quite a few libertarians (like me) as well as a lot of full-blown conservatives, but very few true SJers. My going theory for the lion's share of this disparity is that because a lot of the big places on the 'Net don't allow opinions contradicting SJ (though this is less true than it used to be since Elon Musk bought Twitter), and people only generally put in enough effort to find one place where they can talk politics and then stop, SJers don't generally need to bother with a niche forum like this while anti-SJers do (I, for instance, came here after it became obvious to me that continuing to talk politics on Sufficient Velocity or SpaceBattles would get me permabanned for blasphemy against SJ).

What would you have me do?

Tell them that it's silly to capitalize one and not the other because races are not monolithic entities.

I'm really indifferent on whether they capitalize both or not. To each their own.

What would you have me do?

Take that risk. That was an easy decision.

What would you have me do?

Be consistent. If you say you dont treat black people as a monolithic block, then don't. Recognize that those who shriek about the lack of cap on black are happily assuming they are all interchangeable persons who share exactly the same cultural experiences based solely on their skin color.

It would appear that this decision made by the AP wasn't just something they decided out-of-the-blue.

Correct, and if they hadn't omitted the four words "with our news room" after "consultation" it would be an entirely accurate and honest statement. That absense manages to suggest that this policy is something other than a lily-livered, vibe-checking, virtue signal without directly stating it, but if you are familiar with the particular dialect of urban leftoid journo-bullshit spoken by the AP its meaning is clear enough: "we can't be bothered to explore the nuances of African-American, or African-African" (fucking LOL to that!) "cultural, ethnic, tribal, or economic groupings, and hope our fellow guilt-ridden whiteys will reconize this noble gesture rids us of the need to actually clarify our identifiers, because frankly we're too cowardly and lazy to do that."

If I didn't capitalize the word "black" in my sentence, there could be people here who would demand I capitalize it. What would you have me do?

This is not even remotely true. I have never seen anyone on the motte admonish someone else for not capitalizing black.

At the risk of getting admonished for consensus building, where do you think you are right now?

I haven't been here long enough to know what is accepted and what isn't, but it is my personal preference to capitalize the word black when talking about a Black person/people.

It's a bit dishonest to confidently predict the reaction of a community you admit to knowing nothing about. It's also a bit dishonest to say in one post you're doing it out of peer pressure and in the next say it's your preference.

You're right, those are both fair points. Let me clarify. I started doing it about two years ago when more and more media outlets began doing it. It seemed like the right thing to do, so as to not offend anyone in text-based conversation.

Now that you have offended a bunch of people for not capitalizing White, will you start to capitalize it too, in order to avoid causing such offense in the future?

When did you come to have this preference?

See my response to lurker.

If I didn't capitalize the word "black" in my sentence, there could be people here who would demand I capitalize it.

The question is what sort of person would object to not capitalizing black, if white also isn't capitalized. I would consider such a person a racebaiter of the lowest sort and their admonishment of you would surely lead to them either getting downvoted, piled-on, or most probably both.

They sought guidance

Whose guidance? Were these advisors "trained marxists", holders of PhDs in critical race theory, or did they ask for the opinions of people who do not see race as that important? I think it was the former, so their decision is just laudering what they wanted to do anyway through academics.

The question is what sort of person would object to not capitalizing black, if white isn't also capitalized.

Why can't black be capitalized but not white? I don't think it's necessary in this case to capitalize both. It's the same sort of thing when people counter "Black Lives Matter," by saying, "All Lives Matter". The former statement isn't being made to belittle the lives that aren't black, but rather, to affirm that Black lives truly matter to them and worthy of the same protections in society that non-Black people have. Capitalizing Black in the context of race but not white is done for a similar reason: there is a greater consensus that Black people have enough shared experiences that their identity should be recognized. As it stands right now, the same cannot be said for white people.

Whose guidance? Were these advisors "trained marxists", holders of PhDs in critical race theory, or did they ask for the opinions of people who do not see race as that important? I think it was the former, so their decision is just laudering what they wanted to do anyway through academics.

Do you have any evidence to suggest they were "trained Marxists"?

  • -14

there is a greater consensus that Black people have enough shared experiences that their identity should be recognized. As it stands right now, the same cannot be said for white people.

A bit tautological- marking white people as "the group without an identity" does give them an identity and a mass of shared experience. One defined almost wholly in negative ways and a requirement for higher standards of evidence, but still.

Do you have any evidence to suggest they were "trained Marxists"?

That's probably a reference, maybe indirectly, to Patrisse Cullors, the infamous BLM leader that bought 4 houses with the money donated to BLM.

If you're asking if CRT is descended from Marxism, or most PhDs in CRT have also dabbled in Marxism, I feel comfortable saying yes but providing sufficient evidence for that is a sizable project. Short version is CRT is descended from critical theory, which was developed by the Frankfurt School, (broadly) a descendent of Marxist thought attempting a synthesis without the failures of Marxism-Leninism.

If you're asking about the AP style guide specifically, I don't think anyone outside the AP can answer that.

have enough shared experiences that their identity should be recognized. As it stands right now, the same cannot be said for white people

Says who? Even the avowed leftists that pass through here generally do not buy into this brand of fanatical anti-white hatred

there could be people here who would demand I capitalize it

How did you end up here? Genuinely curious

Edit: “Here” meaning TheMotte

This isn't an official warning, but consider it a disapproving squint. I don't think you are "genuinely curious," I think you are displeased at a leftist posting and you are subtly implying he's a troll or a brigader and questioning whether he belongs here. If you are genuinely curious, there are less confrontational and non-sequiter ways to ask someone how they found us, and if you do think he's a troll or a brigader, it's not your job to "police" the Motte unless he actually posts something that is against the rules.

Ok apologies, there was definitely an element of trying to enforce a consensus there and I was certainly transgressing. That said, it was hard for me to believe the user wasn’t a troll and had somehow stumbled here without being aware of the culture/consensus that does exist here (even if speaking of it or acknowledging it is mostly against the rules).

For god's sake, don't harass away every leftist who comments here, this place could use some more ideological diversity.

It's quite possible he is a troll (or at least pretending to have stumbled upon us when he actually heard about us elsewhere and decided to come see what's what). That said, "Posting leftist views" does not make someone a troll.

As for the 'culture/consensus' that exists here, it's not against the rules to "speak of it" (that is, speak of what you think the culture is). It's against the rules to try to enforce a consensus. In other words, you may think of this as a right-leaning, anti-woke space, but we do not prohibit leftist/woke views, and we explicitly forbid trying to chase them off, or make them feel like they don't "belong" here.

I was tired of dealing with the groupthink and circlejerking on Reddit and I Googled "forums that allow for nuanced and respectful political discussion".

Welcome, we are glad to have you and appreciate your contributions to the discussion.

I Googled "forums that allow for nuanced and respectful political discussion".

Not doubting you, but I'd be interesting in knowing how that worked. I just searched Google for that and then clicked through the first couple pages of links and looked inside the content for any reference to the Mottle. Couldn't find it.

After I typed that, I realized it was actually through asking ChatGPT, not Google. My bad.

I saw this and got excited that maybe chatgpt is commonly offering us up as a good discussion forums. I wasn't able to get it to recommend this place with my own prompts. Including adding hints about a former subreddit named after a type of castle.

I did get chatgpt to craft me a prompt that would give me themotte "Can you suggest any online communities or forums that are known for their emphasis on rational, civil discussion of controversial or sensitive topics?"

You must have gotten lucky with your wording, or are we like the 10th place you've tried?

I was curious if ChatGPT actually knew about and would recommend TheMotte (I admit I was doubtful) but can confirm that asking for "nuanced and respectful political discussion", while initially yielding such recommendations as /r/Ask_Politics and ResetEra (lol), when I followed up by asking for "niche forums with a high level of quality and rules around civility," TheMotte was the first recommendation.

Fact check: plausible.

I don’t know this feels dubious. TheMotte has basically zero googleability and the idea someone would stumble into our dying spinoff forum years after it spun off is just hard to believe.

Funnily enough, I did just that a couple of months ago. I was trying to find someone's old reddit comment and happened to notice one of their comments on /r/themotte. My curiosity was piqued, and here I am now.

(Bit mundane for a first post, I promise I'm working on a couple more substantial contributions)

The whole point of progressivism, to me, is to allow for intersectionality so we can have collective conversations about how to make our country better.

What seems off to me is that all these groups seem to be saying the exact same thing. What do you get from joining the "white dudes" group?

Race isn't a monolith. Gender is not a monolith. I would reject any fellow progressive's premise that every white person is inherently racist and that every man is anti-feminist, simply because there is a non-zero amount of white people who aren't racist and a non-zero amount of men who are anti-feminist.

The gender equivalent to racism would be sexism, not anti-feminism. Equating being against an ideology that preaches it is okay to hate and abuse people because of their gender with sexism is an interesting way of "acknowledging the nuance in gender issues".

Not everyone makes any such distinction. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure whether it's the claim that anti-feminism isn't necessarily sexism or the claim that anti-feminism is necessarily sexism which is more dependent on definitional games for veracity.

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