site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   20925 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 16, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I mean, in part, it goes to back to some things I said about "DEI" not being about diversity per se, but about raising up the most questionable unqualified people deliberately. Because they fundamentally don't believe in merit, or accomplishment at all.

Apply that to a game about historical figures, and it results in some odd choices.

You know, it's funny reading over that post I made from the distance past of August 4th.

Now if Kamala picks an absolute loser idiot white guy because she feels the need to placate white liberals, I could accept that being DEI. But it's looking like she's going to pick someone that actually brings something to the ticket, unlike she did in 2020. Most likely counting on Josh Shapiro to deliver PA's electoral votes.

Yeah, I guess Tim Waltz was a DEI pick.

See also- beauty pageant winners. There are black women who’ve won legitimately(miss France, for example), but there’s also a cavalcade of troons and landwhales who get DEI boosted to the top spot. For some reason, the wokes are way more excited about the latter.

There are black women who’ve won legitimately(miss France, for example)

Bad example. Oldest miss france ever at 34. She finished first runner up of her departement fourteen years ago. So during a time where most women lose attractiveness, she managed to raise hers from regional contender level to national champion. And they just changed rules to allow women over 24, as well as married women or mothers, to participate. The rule change by itself is fine, but obviously it's just a way to put 'inspiring' 50 year old women up there 'with the most difficult job in the world'. Whatever, beauty contests are stupid anyway, they just got considerably stupider now that they're ugly.

I mean, in part, it goes to back to some things I said about "DEI" not being about diversity per se, but about raising up the most questionable unqualified people deliberately. Because they fundamentally don't believe in merit, or accomplishment at all.

I have been thinking of it more and more as a vastly less consequential form of a third world country just grabbing all of the farmland or positions on the grounds that the privileged stole it and things will run just fine when others are given their chance. Except we're redistributing glory instead of material assets. Which makes sense given the sort of person interested in this sort of thing.

At least when it goes wrong no one starves or gets shot.

I do disagree with you on Harris though. I think there was just no one else Biden could have picked that fit the demographic criteria he decided he wanted. It's not "deliberately pick the worst person" it's "set up criteria you can't meet given the number of qualified candidates in that class then shoehorn whoever you have into the niche"

As for Walz, they really did seem to believe that a "weird" lying sitcom dad was positive masculinity. That and Shapiro was apparently not as deferential as they wanted. (Which makes sense; if you're jumping on a sinking ship you should be compensated for the risk. All of the celebrities were)

I think not choosing Shapiro made sense. You don't want the VP overshadowing the presidential candidate. His speech and presence would tower over Harris like the Colossus. The fact that he copies Obama's speaking style would only make him better liked by Democrats.

There’s pretty good circumstantial evidence that Shapiro covered up a murder that his friend committed. Picking him would have been an absolute time bomb for both the campaign and Shapiro himself.

Except we're redistributing glory instead of material assets. Which makes sense given the sort of person interested in this sort of thing.

At least when it goes wrong no one starves or gets shot.

Citation needed. I'd argue misaligning our culture is even more damaging than naked redistribution of assets. At least that can theoretically be undone. A population demoralized by propaganda seems to just commit slow suicide. When Stalin caused a famine in Ukraine, they didn't stop existing. We'll see how Ukraine fairs now that they've fed the flower of their nation into the meatgrinder of war, and NATO nations will probably flood them with 3rd worlders to get their GDP up and pay back all the money they've borrowed.

Things like the fertility crisis that make it harder to bounce back (and act as a justification for migration) seem to predate people lying about black women inventing telescopes.

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