site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   10594 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

To be clear, when he says there's no need to do anything, I'm assuming he doesn't simply mean 'the government shouldn't intervene', I'm also assuming he wouldn't say that the media should try deradicalizing angry right-wing single men, or that moderate feminists should not sympathize with the 4B LARPers.

I generally agree with him, so I can also argue that no, I don't think direct intervention is necessary or likely to be beneficial in the slightest. The future belongs to show who show up. Anyone that prioritizes anything above having kids that have kids loses by default, whatever the cause (e.g. prioritizing career over family, politics over family, media over family, etc.). Over time in terms of generations this problem will simply be selected out of the population, even if "global society" somehow collapses as a result of below replacement TFR. It's a problem with its own inherent solution.

What is the time horizon for this, though? When I look at modern intergenerational differences on things like feminism, gay marriage, and so on it does not seem clear to me those shifts are the result of people with certain politics having more children than people with different politics. Is gay marriage more popular with current generations than past generations because people who were more pro-gay-marriage had more kids?

I think the theory states that the liberal-conservative fertility gap only started to open in the ‘08 recession, so the oldest age cohort it could affect are currently teenagers.

That there are people alive to differ in politics is predicated upon people being to born in the first place. That mores or values change is a red herring insofar as people continue to have kids (which is why I stated "kids who have kids"--kids alone are not enough!). If the result of a lack of antibodies to the culture war results in celibacy, then we're talking about a generation. If it's a general trend that certain traits lead to a below replacement TFR, it could be in the hundreds of years to be fully selected against. In either case, it remains a problem that solves itself over time.

I guess I don't see it. All the people alive today who are choosing not to have kids are, themselves, the kids of "kids who have kids." Seems like there's a further assumption required that some proportion of the population will never be convinced by memes or ideas that lead people not to have kids. That is, humans will never do some kind of voluntary extinction.

My interpretation would be that things like LGBT propaganda/feminism/etc are relatively new and so previous generations were not selected for people with resistance or immunity to them. So you have a new virus burning through a population that has zero immunity to it, it's going to wipe out a lot of the population before things stabilize. I have no idea how long it will take for evolution to course correct here, and hopefully it happens before things get really unpleasant, but I don't doubt that it will correct eventually.

I don't understand the distinction between working on having your own kids versus advocating for policies that'd make it easier for you and yours to have more kids. Surely you'd advocate for a raise to help pay for your own kids? How about for lower taxes at a municipal level? How about per-kid payments at a federal level?

Having more kids always results in having more kids. Raises are to get market value for my labor, not because I have kids. Similarly for lower taxes.

Attempting to optimize policies for the societal production of kids will inevitably result in perverse incentives and the effects of Goodhart's law that I'm personally not willing to subsidize and think is shortsighted. Trying to induce procreation with government policies will likely have marginal success and be susceptible to rampant abuse. Sure, nonintervention might result in ethnic replacement or demographic collapse, but these are common enough over recorded history that I don't have any personal problem with it.

To be clear, I'll attempt to get as much resources as needed for me and mine and advocate for strong families and promote the benefits of strong families, but I view the proper course of government and religion as like Agricultural Extension. Provide advice and best courses of action for individuals to take rather than attempting to compel them to do so.

I agree that individual returns to societal-level advocacy are usually small, but again I don't understand where you draw then line between "advocacy for strong families" versus "Attempting to optimize policies for the societal production of kids".

Having more kids always results in having more kids. Raises are to get market value for my labor, not because I have kids.

If having kids is so central, then why spend time trying to get market value for your labor, instead of spending that time having more kids?

nonintervention might result in ethnic replacement or demographic collapse, but these are common enough over recorded history that I don't have any personal problem with it.

Something bad being common doesn't make it OK - it makes it scarier! And both of these things increase the chance that your descendants won't be able to have as many kids as they otherwise would.

I don't understand where you draw then line between "advocacy for strong families" versus "Attempting to optimize policies for the societal production of kids".

I'm an individualist. I will personally advocate for the merits of strong families. I have no opposition to institutional protection of the right to have a family or the promulgation of information that highlights the benefits of strong families, but I have a strong opposition to institutions, by policy, subsidizing the development of families or compelling them through inducements into existence. It's a private affair and should remain a private affair.

Once you let institutions start meddling, it creates further legitimacy for them to do so, which not only creates shaky predicates (" whoops, that subsidy was cut, guess now you're homeless with eleven kids"), but the mission itself can invert and suddenly it's not about expanding families, but limiting their size, which in the same realm as Reproductive Policy which has already been legitimized.

I personally view institutions like Samuel saw kings:

“He said, "Here are the policies of the king who will rule over you: He will conscript your sons and put them in his chariot forces and in his cavalry; they will run in front of his chariot. He will appoint for himself leaders of thousands and leaders of fifties, as well as those who plow his ground, reap his harvest, and make his weapons of war and his chariot equipment. He will take your daughters to be ointment makers, cooks, and bakers. He will take your best fields and vineyards and give them to his own servants. He will demand a tenth of your seed and of the produce of your vineyards and give it to his administrators and his servants. He will take your male and female servants, as well as your best cattle and your donkeys, and assign them for his own use. He will demand a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will be his servants. In that day you will cry out because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD won't answer you in that day."” (1 Sa 8:11-18, NETfree)

I would not take that offer. I have to live with the institutions that exist (which are in some cases necessary evils) and will take advantage of things like the EITC (as it's my money to begin with), but I'm not going to help create new ones, especially concerning human reproduction.

Augustus tried to boost birth and marriage rates and failed. I'm not optimistic an atomized society filled with perceptions of institutional illegitimacy will have any better luck.

If having kids is so central, then why spend time trying to get market value for your labor, instead of spending that time having more kids?

Isn't that exactly what the Haredi (TFR: 8.56) and Amish (TFR:~8.5) do? And I'm personally not a great example; I'm a stay at home parent that got a late start due to cultural conditioning. I'd love to have as many kids as there are stars, but unfortunately that falls to my descendants to fulfill.

Something bad being common doesn't make it OK - it makes it scarier!

I disagree for the same reason that I have trouble sympathizing with ecological antinatalist sentiments. There have been over thirty documented extinction events, yet life is still here. There have been multiple collapses of human population in recorded history, yet humans are still here. Nothing lasts forever except that which never began. It doesn't mean I want to lean into causing an extinction event or collapse, but in my mind, they're not existential threats.

And both of these things increase the chance that your descendants won't be able to have as many kids as they otherwise would.

In a clade of generations, sure. But if they survive the bottleneck, well, it's free real estate. Those that survived mass culling events like the Black Death or the Great Jewish Revolt left an inordinate genetic impression on future generations. That my descendants might be a different hue or a lower IQ doesn't really matter to me, as selection pressures are dynamic and if worthwhile will emerge again.

I don't identify as a mammal, European Early Farmer, Churusci, Gothic, Saxon, or what have you, while those are certainly facts that could be said about my heritage.

The only constant between me and the far distant soup that spawned life is that still alive.

If my descendants aren't able to cope with what the future holds and face a reproductive dead end, well, that's how life works. I'll do what I can to equip my kids with the wisdom necessary for understanding the rules of the game and to play it accordingly.

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