site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   28485 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 2, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, summarily I get this:

1. Hoecke doesn't apologize for the Nazis enough (or maybe at all?)
2. Hoecke mentions 'thousand years of glorious history' of Germany
3. He said "Alles fuer Deutschland" which turns out has been used by SA
4. Is tolerating swastika-tattooed mobs
5. Some (who?) in some conference called for deporting German citizens if they had the wrong ethnicity

Did I forget anything important?

I don't have much of a stake in German politics, but it would be important for me to understand whether or not AfD are Nazis or Nazis-in-building. I have a very low tolerance for Nazis, but also American politics taught me that about 99% of times when somebody calls somebody else a Nazi it's a lie. There's still 1% where it's true, about the Nazis which do exist, and some of them even wear swastikas (many others wear other outfits and signage) - but one has to be careful there.

So far, from the list 3 is a little worrying - did he know and used it on purpose, or is it like saying Trump is a Nazi because "Make America Great again" was once used 80+ years ago by some Nazi sympathizers? Hard to make a conclusion here. Is there a pattern of using such slogans and symbols, or is it one time thing? By itself, the slogan does not sound that heinous, but of course if he was attracted to it as a way to say "sieg hail" without saying "sieg hail" it'd be a problem.

4 is worrying if he's really leaning on these mobs and welcoming them and integrating them into his infrastructure on the ground. But is not worrying is it's just some jerks that happen to agree with him on something - I'm sure plenty of jerks agree with me on some things, not all jerks are obligated to be wrong about everything all the time. How important are those mobs for him?

5 would be very bad if it were his party position but the vagueness of the claim is kind of suspicious. Who said that? What exactly did they say? How important this person is in defining AfD policy? Do other AfD policymakers confirm this? Did they endorse or promote such actions? "Somebody maybe said something on a conference" is a great start of a cancel campaign, but poor evidence if you want to figure out what's actually going on. Is there more to it?

1 and 2 don't particularly bother me. Politicians can performatively apologize for anything, and 100% of those apologies mean absolutely nothing - they can apologize for a thing today and do the same thing tomorrow. And Germany does have a long and glorious history - at least no less glorious than any other place, and no less bloody and disgusting at the same time too. Nothing wrong in remembering that, it's what conclusions you make out if it and how it moves you to act is important. The moniker "far right" imply that it moves AfD to act like a Nazis or at least as far towards the Nazis as political limitations will allow. But is this true? So far I haven't seen a proper substantiation of that.

P.S. Oh, and the last point. Plenty of people said Putin would start a war. In fact, Russia has been conducting several wars pretty much since it's establishment in early 1990s - they occupied parts of Georgia, part of Moldova, intervened in Central Asian states and Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, there was pretty much no period where Russia was peaceful and isolationist, and Putin with his "tough guy" image never indicated he's going to be any different. And they actively meddled in Ukraine for all that time, too. Full-scale intervention was by no means an obvious outcome, but a lot of people raised it as a possibility - and get laughed at by a lot of other people. Many of the latter still among the decision makers in Europe and Germany, so not sure if their predictive capacities can be used to indicate anything.

I don't have much of a stake in German politics, but it would be important for me to understand whether or not AfD are Nazis or Nazis-in-building. I have a very low tolerance for Nazis, but also American politics taught me that about 99% of times when somebody calls somebody else a Nazi it's a lie. There's still 1% where it's true, about the Nazis which do exist, and some of them even wear swastikas (many others wear other outfits and signage) - but one has to be careful there.

This gets a little confusing when you're actually living in Germany. Actual current-day nazis are rare, but pretty much everyone there had a father or grandfather (or grandmother) who worked for them. Maybe not as card-carrying members of the party, but still swept up in the war effort somehow. It wasn't really a choice, the whole country did. So I can see how the endless performative guilt and apologies would get annoying, since it's basically calling out an entire generation of your family.

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