site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   33222 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

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.

23
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Those in power that don't believe in the values because they are seen as tools of oppression. It is that those who fight for censorship, engage in virtual struggle sessions in the GitHub issue tracker and defend race-swapping in lazy remakes of our old entertainment are nihilist. They don't value anything anymore. The best description I know of the perpetually offended over at twitter is this quote: "I invented adventures for myself and made up a life, so as at least to live in some way. How many times it has happened to me—well, for instance, to take offence simply on purpose, for nothing; and one knows oneself, of course, that one is offended at nothing; that one is putting it on, but yet one brings oneself at last to the point of being really offended." The problem is that quote is from Dostoyevsky's Notes from the Underground published in 1864. But the story is that he writes about nihilists and nihilistic mindsets in that book. So somehow it reflects the truth of human nature over a century later that is applicable in the age of Twitter. You are just observing the loss of values in people to the point of they believe nothing matters anymore.

The nature of what we fight against is as important what we are fighting for. We are in the fight against totalitarian values trying to rush in to the vacuum of their campaign of removing the western values with Oikophobia. The best shot is to decentralize like The Motte removing itself from the censorious reddit Silicon Valley hivemind. (Not trying build consesus here I'm just pointing out that the thing that happened with this forum is already is the consesus for the Motte, to leave the censorious reddit.)

Here have an article about the Oikophobia of Herbert Marcuse https://quillette.com/2022/03/02/herbert-marcuse/

The nature of what we fight against is as important what we are fighting for. We are in the fight against totalitarian values trying to rush in to the vacuum of their campaign of removing the western values with Oikophobia.

I won't speak for @ZorbaTHut, but since there have been some requests for clarification: I don't think your post was out of line (you're expressing your opinions and maybe waging culture war a little bit), but let's be clear here - the purpose of TheMotte is not to "fight for (our) values" (for some value of "our") unless you simply mean "fight for the right to have free and open discussions."

To you, this may look like "fighting against people who want to remove Western values," or more generally, "leftists," but that's not actually TheMotte's mission.

I’m mostly pushing the “rhetorical envelope” to get responses that might enlighten me of my flaws in my views. It seems I found the boundary and be more careful going forward. Didn’t want to edit away after one complaint more try to clarify.

The problem is that quote is from Dostoyevsky's Notes from the Underground published in 1864.

Well, no. The problem is that more or less every generation, ever, has had incentives to typecast their opponents. "Vacuous materialists" is perhaps the second most popular, after "hidebound reactionaries."

Older men and those who have passed their prime have in most cases characters opposite to those of the young. For, owing to their having lived many years and having been more often deceived by others or made more mistakes themselves, and since most human things turn out badly, they are positive about nothing, and in everything they show an excessive lack of energy. [2] They always “think,” but “know” nothing; and in their hesitation they always add “perhaps,” or “maybe”; all their statements are of this kind, never unqualified.

...

And they are unduly selfish, for this also is littleness of mind. And they live not for the noble, but for the useful, more than they ought, because they are selfish; for the useful is a good for the individual, whereas the noble is good absolutely.

Aristotle, Rhetoric, 2.13

You, Dostoyevsky, and Aristotle all observe a type, then proceed to psychoanalysis. "Why does one notice old men hedging their bets? Oh, it must be due to a life of being deceived." "Why are leftists performatively upset? Surely it must imply a lack of real values." Regardless of the accuracy of your observations, the analysis is on shaky grounds. I'm inclined to give Dostoyevsky some credence; I'd like to see more legwork for your interpretation of modern leftism.

"Why are leftists performatively upset? Surely it must imply a lack of real values."

Yeah there are perpetually offended on the other side of the political spectrum that are equally nihilistic. Those nihilist got upset with the Lizzo twerking with a crystal flute they didn't know existed until the video showed up. I only imply leftist in the subsequent paragraphs and not in the first one. Thus the other reply saying that I'm waging a culture war. But I don't believe that it is a single group that is offended because of their lack of values but many groups and of many political persuasions.

Regardless of the accuracy of your observations, the analysis is on shaky grounds. I'm inclined to give Dostoyevsky some credence; I'd like to see more legwork for your interpretation.

You mean that I need to dig up the literary analysis I read that inspired me to read Notes of the Underground? It made the connection of nihilism with offence of something imagined slight almost treated as a game by the perpetrator. I read it so long ago but that quote has stuck with me. Values, created, lack of, and/or passed on from a higher power are a central theme to his works in general.

Sorry, no, I wanted to see a more thorough analysis on why you think those who "engage in virtual struggle sessions in the GitHub issue tracker and defend race-swapping" are nihilistic. It's a little easier to argue that the broader dynamics of social media are hollow.

Dostoevsky did his diligence, to be sure, and I have no qualms with your reading of him.

So the formal proof managment system Coq is going to change its name any day now to use a less sexist name. Oh they have been in a naming committee for over a year now! https://github.com/coq/coq/wiki/Alternative-names

I've witnessed so many of these where a complaint is lodged in the issue tracker over something without more reason that something in the "project" is problematic and not inclusive in some way. It is just simple wording or including a CoC(note the acronym for Code of Conduct) . It is not consistent or helping the project in a meaningful way to be more inclusive.

I witnessed the eton project get piled on for its original name of “coon” without fully explaining to the project author what the problem is, just assuming that the author is American.

How about this a German guy complaining to the Italian about the usage of master/slave internally in the Italian guys project, which is quite popular.

All of these examples take no concern in that there are consequences to the things that they are wanting to change. Because changing stuff other than adding a CoC could possibly break stuff or make a casual user not finding it again.

As for race-swapping a character is in some contexts possibility to break immersion. In a similar way not valuing the consumer of the thing that they want change only thinking of their own sensibilities.

As a French user of proof assistants I'm offended Americans would try to destroy yet more of our cultural achievements over their hangups.

Truly nothing is safe.

That sounds wrong and likely delusional and stupid, but not nihilistic, at least not without extra steps. According to SocJus ideology, naming something like Coq would cause some people, especially women and people of color, to feel uncomfortable and thus less encouraged to join projects that might use it. Under this framework, changing the name is a way to make the project meaningfully more inclusive.

Also:

It is just simple wording or including a CoC(note the acronym for Code of Conduct) . It is not consistent or helping the project in a meaningful way to be more inclusive.

I have to wonder how long it will be before Codes of Conduct will have to be renamed for forming an acronym that is similarly harmful to inclusivity according to SocJus ideology.

Well the point why I think it is nihilistic is the fact the name change hasn’t happened in year since the wiki page was authored. Not even the complainer believes the name is important enough to follow up on it.

I see, it seems that I misunderstood you, and your point seems a good one. Could it be that they're principled but lazy? Which, to be fair, is really just another way of saying nihilistic.

Being principled would imply consistency and you yourself noted that the inconsistency with regards of CoC vs Coq. It is the same thing as pro-life activists murdering people. Actions speak louder than words. Just because they say that they are principled on 'Inclusion' with regards of GitHub projects, then they start to argue for exclusion of viewpoints that aren't distinctly North American. And looking at the behavior, actual inclusion doesn't matter to them, the results of the projects doesn't matter to them, hard work doesn't matter to them, contributing useful stuff doesn't matter to them. What does matter to these people? Nihilism pure and simple they don't value anything except their own viewpoint.

edit: To point out to other people just because that the github complainers happen to be "leftist" doesn't mean that similar phenomena doesn't exist on the right. I've seen plenty of people from the right being equally indifferent to the outcomes of their activism thus the example of "pro-life" murderers.

Sweeping generalizations of the outgroup, consensus building.

Isn’t this consensus building?

how is it consesus building? I can modify my comment to clarify...

Sweeping generalizations of the outgroup

What outgroup? There is a sweeping generalization but not a specific group you could point to. Or is "those in power" and my description of the many groups of offendacons present on twitter made into a single group?

It’s in the style of waging the culture war, to me.

[People we don’t like] don’t value anything anymore! They’re rushing in to replace the values they destroyed!

We are in the fight against them and their values!

I'll be more mindful with the rhetoric going forward. The move from reddit is a part of the culture war, although might be a skirmish but it is a clash of values. That is a part of my comment of that the move is already done so there is no more fighting remaining of that battle of "values". I'm not calling for any further action from anyone more than knowing that what I view the move away from reddit was.

I see why you would say this, but even with your edits you're still wrong. Your interpretation of why the mods do what they do should not be used as a basis for trying to define what "we fight against" here. One of the major things that "we" want is a diverse group of posters. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another. Don't claim it for anyone.

Edit: In particular, note that your reasoning here implies that the move from reddit means that we now all have values that mean we would fight against people who support "race swapping in .. remakes." Do you not want this to be a place where you can exchange views on equal terms with people who disagree with you on that issue, for example?

Well it is not a perfect argument by me. I’ve replied earlier that this also a slight push of the use language to get responses where I can try move my understanding of the issues forward. If I’m out of line I’ll happily take my punishment.

Seems people agree more with you then with me so maybe I’m wrong

I'm really glad you commented, because I think you're right. There shouldn't be a specific thing that "we fight against" here, unless it's heat over light and the difficulty of finding places to usefully talk with people you disagree with.

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