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.

Well, this brings up one interesting counter argument (which I don't particularly agree with). When I argue with people about land acknowledgements, and bring up that I think that they're stupid because every land is stolen land, the only interesting argument I heard in return is that since the native Americans's descents are still around, it's important to give land acknowledgements at events for native Americans as a sign of respect. Basically respect for the living. However, the people the native Americans had long ago slaughtered to get their land are long gone (as are the neanderthals), so there's no reason to acknowledge their previous ownership.

To me this sounds like they're saying we only need to apologize for the past if the descendants of the victims are still around. This quickly gets to a repugnant conclusion, which is that in some ways it's better to have killed off an entire population then leave any descendents, because if there are no descendents, there's no need to apologize.

I think this also sounds similar to another argument, which is that the only reason white people are held so guilty for slave owning is because previous slave owning populations sterilized the slaves, or the slaves otherwise went extinct before the modern era. This makes it sound like the real "sin" of white people which makes them distinct from other slave owning populations, is that they freed the slaves, and gave them enough resources that their descendents lived to the modern age. Once again, no descendents, no guilt. And white people are demonized as "literally the worst", when in fact they were one of the few groups of people noble enough to end slavery.

This makes it sound like the real "sin" of white people which makes them distinct from other slave owning populations, is that they freed the slaves, and gave them enough resources that their descendents lived to the modern age.

Copenhagen ethics strikes again. This also naturally applies to sexism and racism.

noble enough to end slavery

Yeah, now it's the people that solved the problems that are more bound than those for whom they solved the problems for. And while you could argue that it's not really nobility that ended these practices, and more just good business sense (slavery is not economical in the face of industrialization, and the British were the most industrialized leading to them being the most anti-slavery) with a side of taking the comparatively-unindustrialized colonies down a few pegs (which also applied to the southern US), that is not the argument most of the nags use. They do it just to nag as is their nature.

slavery is not economical in the face of industrialization, and the British were the most industrialized leading to them being the most anti-slavery

I’ve seen this explanation before but thinking about it now it no longer makes sense to me.

Wasn’t it mostly just the island of Britain itself which lead the word in industrialisation while they still controlled lots of poorly developed colonies? Why would Britain, where slavery had already been dead for hundreds of years, developing industrially change the profitability of using slaves in areas of the empire with little to no industry?

Slavery never caught on in the British isles because they had population in excess; the same time that the US was still using slave labor had the British loosing children in mining accidents.

And despite eliminating the slave trade in the early 1800s, they didn't manumit slaves in the Caribbean holdings till around the 1840s.

If you want to be very, very cynical, the British anti-slave movement was a mix of virtue signaling and economic tactics to try and neuter an up and coming economic super-power.

Please excuse the lack of sources. It's early morning for me and I'm being lazy.

Slavery never caught on in the British isles because they had population in excess;

I learned something new looking this up, that Scotland still had slaves in the coal mines until 1799, but my understanding is that England (and by extension Ireland and Wales) didn’t use slaves domestically simply because it hadn’t been accepted under common law since the 12th century.

It didn't stop them in the Caribbean, though.

Also, minor correction on my part. The British manumitted their slaves in 1838 - it was the French that kept them until 1848 before it was abolished. My apologies - it's been a while since I've cracked open those books.

That said, I'm perhaps being very cynical. But if I'm sure the British had required the manpower, they would have worked some legal and/or financial shenanigan out.

This is all pure supposition on my part, however, so feel free to ignore it.

I don't know anything about the economics of slavery, so I'm just trying to understand. But why does having population in excess make slavery less enticing? I understand you can get lots of cheap labor if you have excess population. But at the same time, slavery is free labor, and wouldn't having excess population mean you have more people to enslave?

Slaves are not 'free'. Intial purchase, maintenance, oversight - all costs. Then there's the social aspects - slaves in the South were, ironically enough, treated very well compared to thier brethern that went elsewhere. It's why you get twisted situations such as the Irish Canal in New Orleans, Louisiana, that was so named due to all the Irish immigrants that died during it's construction in 1830s.

Why didn't they use slave labor? Because immigrant labor was much, much cheaper.

It's cost of labor vs wages, something I've been wanting to talk about recently. Slaves have huge fixed and variable costs, especially if you have to do it individually and can't take advantage of coordinated/socialized investments like the county militia Catch'uh Freeman team

You need some pretty weird conditions for slavery or serfdom to coexist with widespread wage labor iirc. Lots of war captives in Rome, ways to stop serfs bailing to go work for cash in Russia, etc. (i still don't know how that second one worked tbh, anyone have a clue?)

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