site banner
PaperclipPerfector  19d ago (text post)   32922 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 4, 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.

It's a very difficult problem for anyone who is anti-establishment.

The default is that being president is really being elected to be the scapegoat. The president does not actually have that much power to change the big trends that make people happy or unhappy with their situation.

So if you have a woke/establishment president, they end up cementing woke rule with their court picks, administrative rulings, funding decisions, DoJ prosecution decisions, EEOC appointments, etc. And then when you elect a fire-breathing ant-establishment politician they spend all their energy thrashing and on petty beefs, get nothing done, and then end up the scapegoat for all the problems that have accumulated over the past ten years.

Trump court picks have actually done a lot against the DEI/woke crowd

I will never forgive Gorsuch for Bostock.

The conservative court picks, definitely slow down woke, that's the advantage of not having a woke/establishment president. But they don't actually reverse previous woke and fix the country. They don't even stop woke movement entirely, again, Bostock.

Richard hanania laid out how a lot of woke stuff sits on executive orders that Trump could easily cancel. Hopefully he actually does it this time

For one, injunctions in half the states against Biden's new title IX "misgendering is an expellable offense" rules. Which at least gave it a slim chance of being overturned by courts before it became a fait accompli.

Out of curiosity, have the election results changed your view on the general political situation in the US? Would you be less inclined to push the button, after a demonstration of the limits of Blue power?

No, it just delays the inevitable by a few years, until they get in again and finish the plan of giving their imported migrants the vote in every swing state.

Go look at Ken White doing the "literally murder heritage foundation members" thing and tell me there's any option other than getting the necessary violence over with as fast and effectively as possible. Bluesky is already talking about a final solution to the white man problem, why should we give them any more time to prepare for it, when they will only grow stronger and their brainwashing more effective?
If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today. If you say ok sure, I say why not 40 years ago when this could have been stopped by a targeted excision instead of civilization-destroying war?

Can I just ask, for the record, exactly how big the pile of skulls you want to build is?

Are we talking thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Tens of millions? Presumably not billions since, uh, not that many Westerners.

(Disclaimer: I am definitely in a glass house here.)

As late as the 70s it probably would have been a few 10s of thousands, although that's with the benefit of hindsight knowing which obscure academics to target. Now... Being realistic it would spiral out of control unless you were very lucky or had enough top-down organization (which would make violence redundant in the first place, and is obviously what the NRX crew is aiming for. Good luck to them.)

Like Hannah Arendt said about nuclear war, it can only be a rational response against a future worse than human extinction.

(Disclaimer: I am definitely in a glass house here.)

Fun fact: it used to be a sand castle.

Bluesky is already talking about a final solution to the white man problem

Are we talking randos saying edgy things, or some kind of coordinated thought push?

‘The death of the white American male’ or ‘the end of white manhood’ has been a grievance studies DEI goal for a while. It’s hard to tell how actual literal this goal is.

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