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.

The Dems didn't come close to invoking "White Identity Politics" here. What part of the "white dudes for Harris" program said "white people have distinct interests which will be advanced by a Harris administration"? Because if there was one, I missed it.

First up was Jeff Bridges, who joined the stream from a computer chair locked to a deep recline. (“I’m white, I’m the Dude, and I’m for Harris,” he said. “A woman president. How exciting!”)

"You white guys should vote for Harris because she isn't one of you, and thus deserves honors and offices. And besides, we all know that your actual policy wants and needs are never going to be addressed, so why not vote for novelty?"

Then into the rotation went the perpetually nerdy Pete Buttigieg, who did a decent job eschewing his typical didactic, policy-only instincts to match the giddy energy of the moment. (“Men are more free when the leader of the free world supports access to birth control,” said Buttigieg, a sentiment I read as extending the olive branch toward Barstool listeners.)

"You white guys have to vote for Harris because if you don't, other, more important interest groups will screech at you about not getting their way."

Josh Groban followed, helming a contingency of pleasantly washed-up entertainment industry veterans: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Mark Hamill, Josh Gad, and Sean Astin, the latter of whom shared a charming story about the power of nontoxic men’s groups.

"You white guys are completely outmoded and obsolete, but there's a modern program to make you less like your icky selves, and part of that is voting for Harris."

Threaded between them were the likes of J.B. Pritzker and Tim Walz—two progressive, vanilla-pale Midwestern governors—who saluted men who look exactly like them. “When I’m invited to an event called White Dudes for Harris … it doesn’t sound like something I’d usually join, but this is a great cause,” said Pritzker, in one of the more honest moments of the evening.

"I wouldn't normally be caught dead with the likes of you asshats; I actually have to hold on to power and influence. But if you're willing to support me and my causes I guess I won't actively turn you away!"

One of the more interesting aspects about the White Dudes for Harris stream was how all the speakers resisted the desire to scold or lecture the assembled Caucasians about the many, many world-historic crimes they have unleashed upon the face of the earth. The tone was positive and empathetic, confident that white men are capable of goodness—a departure, I think, from the hectoring morality that would go on to doom the momentum of Clinton’s 2016 campaign. The opportunity to extinguish MAGAdom is so enticing that it has purged one of the most self-sabotaging inclinations in the American liberal’s coalition: the fractious adjudication of identity that can too often become a priority over winning elections. The White Dudes for Harris cause grows stronger every day. We are cringe, but we are free.

"You white guys are the forever accursed and attainted children of Cain, a plague of locusts upon all you see! However, if you repent of your heinous sin, abase yourself before the holy Other, and give the proper obeisance and indulgences, then for the moment we will refrain from actively condemning you!"

“Men are more free when the leader of the free world supports access to birth control,” said Buttigieg, a sentiment I read as extending the olive branch toward Barstool listeners.

Would've been too on the nose to have anyone else saying that, wouldn't it?

Non-tradcons might regard this as distasteful, but it's doubtful that anyone who's willing to agree with democrats about birth control/abortion is going to consider the full implications of that statement.

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