site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   32075 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 11, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Dursleys were middle class social climbers (the most universally despised class). weasels and malfoys were the two types of old money with no money (and fathers who had to stoop to taking govt sinecures as welfare, or in shady business with The Wrong Sort ("directly in business" being the most disreputable part of course)). Hermione was the acceptable kind of rising middle class (dentist, daughter in higher education, probably going into non-profit work). Harry was the ideal form of old money, with a good pedigree on the father's side, fresh blood of undeniable quality from the mother's side, and the money still there (and nobody asks where it came from because it obviously wasn't from anything as tasteless as working for it). Goblins were the international finance class obvs.

Harry is the classic storybook prince who grew up noble living in a pig pen and instantly takes to the ways of his people through pure blood memory.

I'm not sure we even saw anyone who was legitimately from the lower orders except a few parodies like hagrid and the house gnomes, maybe the bus driver? There was probably a scholarship boy hanging from a bannister by his underwear that nobody bothered to mention because it would be gauche to bring attention to it.

I love that Americans can look at the same scene through an entirely different colour spectrum, and all the flashing red bits just look gray to them.

I love that Americans can look at the same scene through an entirely different colour spectrum, and all the flashing red bits just look gray to them.

The question is what value is encoded in the British lens and what Americans are missing by not seeing this worldview. Does it make Americans worse analysts when interacting with the Chinese etc or does it free them to do more, with less mental burdens or are they stupider because they're not constantly doing such social calculus etc etc Like preeminent American Timothy Dexter I'll put my punctuation at the end...,,,???????

If some reader misses something that the author intended and the expected audience understood, I would think less of that reader. Like if all I took away from Animal Farm was that it is a sad story about animals, you would be correct to look down on me.

Certainly I find that living in a foreign country is more relaxing in many ways because my social radar isn’t going off all the time.

Weasleys werent old money, even if we discount the weird Irish twins none of them speak in RP / upper class accents except for Ginny to some extent. If one had to place them in the British class system it would be as middle-middle rurals vaguely involved in county life but certainly not upper class. There’s no real evidence dad’s job is a sinecure and the ramshackle thing they live in is more quaint converted barn (or grain silo) than dilapidated dower house.

No, I agree with @SteveKirk here. The Weasleys have a noble background (they’re on the Black tapestry) and they’re well known as an old-established Pureblood family. Lucius Malfoy basically dislikes them for being traitors and letting the side down.

It’s noted several times that Mr. Weasley could have a lot more money and be a lot more influential if he were willing to toe the line. He has personal relationships with bigwigs and Department Heads like Bagman and Crouch.

Many of their children also get distinguished positions: Percy goes straight to the top of government and Bill has an important job in the biggest bank in Britain.

(I’m ignoring accents and going by the books, I never had much interest in the films).

Dursleys were middle class social climbers (the most universally despised class).

I always got the impression that JK was channeling Hyacinth Bucket when she wrote Petunia.

There was probably a scholarship boy hanging from a bannister by his underwear

Snape, I think. I can’t remember the flashback well but I think it’s implied that child!Snape comes from the bad end of town.

Oh, Snape's wifebeating dad definitely was. His mom married down and Paid The Toll in American racial terms.

Unless he got a very good match Snape's children would have fallen out entirely, which is one reason him being in love with Lily in spite of his class anxiety was so meaningful.

weasels and malfoys were the two types of old money with no money

Uh, since when did the Malfoys have no money? They were famously generationally wealthy, as evidenced by Lucius Malfoy purchasing a new Nimbus 2001 for each member of the Slytherin Quidditch team in Chamber of Secrets

I don't think it's enough to say they were in economically dire straits, but in the Half-Blood Prince, Narcissa is portrayed trying to sell some trinkets.

I'd have liked an angle where the Malfoys turn to Voldemort out of economic desperation.

More like Voldy eating them out of house and home :P Like Elizabeth I who destroyed political enemies by turning up with her retinue for two months.

Yes, the Malfoys were evil aristos parleying old money and social status for influence.

Malfoy’s mates Crabbe and Goyle - lower class or lower middle class? Servants of House Malfoy? As an American, all I can tell is they’re somewhere between soccer hooligans and Alfred Pennyworth.

The lowest of upper/upper middle class, from what I've gathered if I'm not mixing it up with fanon. The kind that have to brownnose people like Malfoys to stay at their level.

Senior Crabbe/Goyle are in the Death Eaters so they couldn't have been too lowborn.

DEs had a lot of people and AFAIR accepted anyone who was pureblood and was willing to worship the big V. I don't think it required any special position in the society, at least for mere membership - it seems to be modeled after the Nazi party, which explicitly welcomed low class people that felt the society has left them behind and wanted to do something about it, no matter who gets hurt. It seems the true numbers of DEs weren't even known as many who were eager to join when the things were going well for them, later claimed there weren't true DEs as they were imperiused or coerced (weird that they didn't have means to detect somebody had been imperiused, but let's not dwell of that, HPs magic system is so full of plot holes).

(weird that they didn't have means to detect somebody had been imperiused, but let's not dwell of that, HPs magic system is so full of plot holes).

They could always dose anyone they wanted to question with Veritaserum, the problem in HP society is that the Good Guys can't just impose such measures on the important people.

weird that they didn't have means to detect somebody had been imperiused, but let's not dwell of that, HPs magic system is so full of plot holes

Also, sometimes you just can’t do stuff. Modern fantasy is very influenced by sci-fi and D&D, and readers expects thing to be rule-based, comprehensible, and amenable to experimentation. See for example all the silliness about playing rules-lawyer with genies.

I don’t think the deep HP magic runs on such modernist lines. It’s more like art: there are principles and the basics are straightforward but the complex stuff just isn’t, and you have to go by feel.

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