site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   34129 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'm convinced that 95+% of attacks on "white women" in progressive spaces are just laundering misogynistic attacks through a racial lens to let wokies say "Women cry to get their way" or "women are frivolous and stupid" without getting called out.

I'm not sure what my feelings on chromosomes are. My general default is that physical presentation (ie visible genitals) rule first along with organic social presentation (though this is less telling as trans ideology spreads), and any other medical testing for natural conditions is a little squicky. I suspect if we tested male competitors we would find higher than expected incidences of xyy syndromes, which lead to greater height and higher test levels. It would seem ridiculous to ban those men. I'm not sure how to translate it back.

I suspect if we tested male competitors we would find higher than expected incidences of xyy syndromes, which lead to greater height and higher test levels.

Of course, this opens up other possibilities. Other athletes might then convincingly argue that they are suffering from single-Y syndrome, and require additional testosterone to compete on a level playing field.

I'm in favor of allowing mild test supplementation.

I'm convinced that 95+% of attacks on "white women" in progressive spaces are just laundering misogynistic attacks through a racial lens to let wokies say "Women cry to get their way" or "women are frivolous and stupid" without getting called out.

While I imagine even progressives can get all-so-tiresome’d out from Women’s Tears, if it’s not okay to criticize someone in her capacity as “woman” but okay to criticize someone in her capacity as “white + woman,” I’m going to apply some Occam’s razor here and say this has more to do with the “white” part of the equation than the “woman” part.

Since white women are often some of the staunchest allies of progressive causes and idpol policies, if not one of their core constituencies, perhaps these are cases of leopards eating faces.

if it’s not okay to criticize someone in her capacity as “woman” but okay to criticize someone in her capacity as “white + woman,” I’m going to apply some Occam’s razor here and say this has more to do with the “white” part of the equation than the “woman” part.

I'm not understanding where Occam's razor comes down that way.

All the things White Women are criticized for in woke spaces are things Women are criticized for in TRP spaces. I tend to hold the view that these are accurate stereotypes of women, generally, regardless, so the simplest explanation is that the use of the qualifier "white" is meaningless, it is used to provide cover.

IIRC the "white women's tears" thing iirc started as a way for black women to bully white women who responded to "woke" bullying over race by crying/seeking sympathy. That was obviously not something that could be allowed. But it may have now become a license for misogyny.

I suspect if we tested male competitors we would find higher than expected incidences of xyy syndromes, which lead to greater height and higher test levels. It would seem ridiculous to ban those men. I'm not sure how to translate it back.

Isn't the standard response to this problem that the male category can just be the "open" category while the female category is specifically a carve out due to female deficiencies (i.e. disguised special Olympics)?

Does that fail as a solution here?

Cries of "misogyny" seem to just be ways to cast shade on those objecting to a real issue.

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