site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   32892 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 5, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I prefer to think of the glass as being half full. If they can't evict the Muslims, at least they'll get to watch them burn the LGBT project to the ground.

I mean, maybe in Europe because they can't appear to assimilate people moving to their country that hasn't been their for 300 years, but in America at least, Muslim's are more liberal than evangelical Christian's on most social issues.

How much of this is simply the result of selection? Muslims that make it to America are more educated, wealthier and probably more inclined towards typical Western sentiments to begin with than those that go to Europe. The ability of America to assimilate would have to be tested with, say, the unorganized crossing of several millions of Syrians through the Mexican border to make an accurate comparison.

Europe fails to assimilate, yes, but there's also major selection effect due to the Atlantic. Most American Muslims (ie, non-refugees) are heavily selected for wealth, education, and other liberal tendencies.

That said, the first and possibly only Muslim-majority city in the US rather famously banned pride flags on government property. The liberalism of American Muslims may be overstated and contingent.

Is that actually true?

Muslims in America seem to genuinely be more socially conservative than the norm. Like, America in the 90’s level, sure, not like middle eastern level, but I have a hard time buying that they’re more liberal than evangelicals.

https://www.newsweek.com/muslim-white-evangelical-gay-marriage-907627

"Muslims, by a margin of 51 percent to 34 percent, favor same-sex marriage, compared to just four years ago when a majority, 51 percent, were opposed. There were similar results for black Protestants, with 54 percent opposing gay marriage in PRRI's 2014 American Values Atlas, compared with 43 percent in the latest findings.

Indeed, opposition to same-sex marriage is now limited almost entirely to white conservative Christians. Fifty-eight percent of white evangelical Christians and 53 percent of Mormons—an overwhelming majority of whom are white—are opposed to allowing gay couples to marry."

This is from 2018, but there's polling show even black Protestant's have become more socially liberal (as seen here on abortion - https://x.com/ryanburge/status/1817372877538074993).

Now, maybe there's some backlash on this in recent years, but that means there's also been some on the evangelical side as well. Plus, on other social issues such as abortion, abortion is just a generally less important thing even in conservative Islamic law, from what I know.

Even then, I'd argue American Muslim's are closer to black Protestants than white evanglicals, in that even if they're socially conservative, they're largely not voting on it.

OTOH, to be fair, Gretchen Whitmer lost support in the Dearborn area of Michigan (about 30 points), even as she increased her overall support in her re-election bid for Governor.

Again, Europe is different, but I've seen no real evidence of the same issues w/ second or third generation Muslim immigrants as Europe is having.

I've been starting to think Nybbler is right about everything so here's why that might not work.

There will be a two-tier system where Muslims are allowed their traditions, but non-Muslims are still forced to endure gay and trans propaganda. And Muslims will be just fine with that as it weakens their enemies who live in the House of War.

Even if Islamic states are eventually established in Europe, they will still allow LGBTQ for non-Muslims so long as they pay the Jizya.

Actually existing examples of Muslims with political power in the west have been largely hostile to LGBT unless political coalitions required them to shut up about it.

Even if Islamic states are eventually established in Europe, they will still allow LGBTQ for non-Muslims so long as they pay the Jizya.

I love how people are blackpilling and still believe something like this.

Christians at least have the People of the Book thing going for them. Religious Muslims think the gays are degenerates. Even worse than degenerates: contagious degenerates. Hypocritical, contagious degenerates. The same people who yell about freedom and letting a thousand flowers bloom immediately went to trying to enforce their doctrine on people's kids, including yelling and abusing them for not buying in.. This is not 7th century Islam; it's been shaped by ressentiment at how it feels the West treats it.

They tolerate it because they have to. If the time ever comes when they don't have to, all of this shit is going. And it almost certainly won't go quietly so prepare for mutually radicalizing strife.

The muslims enjoy a remarkable protected status for now because they are losers who continue exploiting the meta. Nigerians and Hindus in the Uk are starting to wise up to the meta too. The coming brown vs brown conflicts will melt the minds of progressives.

This will definitely happen. But the only group that has pro-outgroup bias (White Britons) will just continue to lose and lose.

The pro-outgroup white elites consider their own kin the enemy, and no small amount consider themselves part of the enemy. Their own cultural suicide is advertised as a net benefit for society.

Part of this is because only whites have a culture of self-criticism, usually because the objective is to tear down the proximate enemy. The reason for this meta being exploited seems to have gotten muddled of late, and now whites are the only ones who actively self-flagellate as a signal. The problem is that, since blacks and muslims and other cultures NEVER admit having done any fault for anything they have ever done, white people are the only ones who have a written record of saying 'we did bad things'. If I got an AI to teach 'who did bad things in the past' only white people will have written evidence of having done bad.

In this sociopolitical meta, only the highest skill players know that the self flagellation is only performative. I do not trust that new entrants into the cultural messaging will realize the game, and white men will cleave into blackpills or cucks exclusively.

The muslims enjoy a remarkable protected status for now because they are losers who continue exploiting the meta.

If it's stupid and it works it's not stupid.

For the saddest words of tongue or pen, that handily beats "nybbler was right again"

There's already active fights in the UK over mandatory LGBTQBBQ lessons in Muslim (and Jewish) religious schools.
The most cynical interpretation is that eternal conflict between these groups is fuel for the expansion of the administrative state. It won't ever be settled one way or another, but each fight will chip away at the freedom offered by unprincipled exceptions like "illegal hate speech in the privacy of your own home is not yet a crime"

Neither the Ts nor the Muslims will be allowed to win, because using incompatible groups to keep eachother down is a key tactic of the old empire brought home for domestic use. Same with the Ts and actual women, Indians and Muslims, etc.
The UK regime is much more self-aware and doesn't have the American issue of the latest radical group seizing the wheel of the Democratic party every few years. Everything they do is much more calculated.

Yeah, in retrospect it was pretty autistic to deep dive in post-modernist Critical X Theory texts in hopes of "cracking the code", when the whole thing is an opportunistic deployment of one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Even if Islamic states are eventually established in Europe, they will still allow LGBTQ for non-Muslims so long as they pay the Jizya.

Muslim states only allow Dhimmitude for Christians and Jews, and the LGBTQ crowd are definitely not (practicing) either.

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