site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   20543 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.

Declaring one's own aesthetic preferences to be moral precepts was supposed to be a conservative failing, not one of old-school commies.

Not dressing like shit.

"Proper business attire" wasn't handed down from the Gods, it didn't even become that until the earliest 20th century.

Varied and challenging artistic tastes.

C.S. Lewis answered that one:

When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty, I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.

Valorization of ordinary lives and work.

Should be expected from a communist. His error here is he's taking "crypto bros or hustle bros or WallStreetBets types" as the mode. No, these people have always been with us. They're flashy but not the norm. Some of them hit it big, most of them fail. The idea of "going to college, getting a good job, working hard, and slowly building wealth for retirement." has rarely been more valorized.

Resistance to celebrity obsession.

Two words: Elvis Presley. Nothing's changed much here recently.

The prohibition against selling out.

There was this idea of “selling out” in the 1990s

1990s? Certainly it goes back at least to the 1960s. And as with the "crypto bros", most everyone DID sell out, usually sooner rather than later. Most of those who didn't had nothing to sell. Note the complaint here is rather in conflict with the complaint about insufficient valorization of ordinary lives and work.

Declaring one's own aesthetic preferences to be moral precepts was supposed to be a conservative failing, not one of old-school commies.

Hahaha

The history of authoritarian communism gives lie to that claim.

Two words: Elvis Presley. Nothing's changed much here recently.

If you look at videos of Elvis performing in his prime, I think most of the people going hysterical and literally fainting were teenage girls. I think that's largely Freddie's point: that certain behaviour which is acceptable in teenagers is very unbecoming in adults who ought to know better. Which includes many Swifties. I absolutely think the phenomenon of unmarried childless thirty-plus women spending small fortunes in order to go see a teenybopper on tour is a new one, actually.

C.S. Lewis answered that one

But C.S. Lewis did have varied and challenging artistic tastes! There's nothing wrong with a person in their thirties reading YA fiction in addition to reading books intended for adults. It's when YA fiction, fantasy, sci-fi etc. is all that you read that it becomes a sign of immaturity.

Elvis's rabid teenage fans grew up to be his rabid thirty-plus female fans (and his remaining rabid 80+ female fans who sustain SirusXM's Elvis channel). Same goes for Swift; she's not a teenybopper anymore; she was famously born in 1989 making her 35 years old.

Possibly this was less obvious in the days of “live fast, die young”.

But that's actually my question - in the 1970s, were there actually any unmarried childless women in their thirties showing up to Elvis gigs and literally fainting with excitement?

Sorry, when referring to Taylor Swift as a teenybopper I meant that her music's primary target demographic is and always has been teenage girls, not that she herself is a teenager.

But that's actually my question - in the 1970s, were there actually any unmarried childless women in their thirties showing up to Elvis gigs and literally fainting with excitement?

In a word, yes.

I mean, do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Do you have any reason to doubt? I couldn't, without significant effort, produce specific evidence of this. And my experience with "citation needed" is no citation will be accepted anyway. But here's something in the ballpark.

https://old.reddit.com/r/Elvis/comments/xhef68/on_december_31st_1975_elvis_performed_the_largest/

And my experience with "citation needed" is no citation will be accepted anyway.

That was needlessly rude. "There's no point providing evidence for my factual claims, because even if I do you people won't believe me anyway" seems profoundly out of keeping with the ethos of this space.

Sorry, when referring to Taylor Swift as a teenybopper I meant that her music's primary target demographic is and always has been teenage girls, not that she herself is a teenager.

This is obviously false, though. Her primary target demographic, throughout her career, has been, “people of roughly the same age as Taylor Swift.” As she has aged, her fanbase has aged along with her, and her lyrical subject matter has evolved concurrently. Yes, many girls who are currently teenage are into Taylor Swift, but she doesn’t have the cachet among that demographic that she did 10 years ago, and the majority of people at her shows are millennials, none of whom are currently teenaged.

I think there is something different in a lot of these areas in that the fans of (insert Taylor Swift, LEGO, Star Wars, Marvel, Funko Pops, Video Games etc) would probably still have been fans in the past, at least to some extent, but due to trends around marriage and having kids, instead of listening to a radio station or going to a movie or whatever they have high levels of disposable income and time to spend on their hobbies that would otherwise be spent on children.

I personally see this as net negative for society, others might see it as net positive, but I think it is hard to argue it is not happening.

I personally see this as net negative for society, others might see it as net positive, but I think it is hard to argue it is not happening.

It's not that it's not happening. It's that it's not new. Video games are kind of the exception, but the idea that they were ever just for children never really solidified; the Boomers (except the youngest) pretty much played them ONLY as adults if they played them, and every generation since never stopped playing.

There's nothing wrong with a person in their thirties reading YA fiction in addition to reading books intended for adults. It's when YA fiction, fantasy, sci-fi etc. is all that you read that it becomes a sign of immaturity.

This seems like a classic motte-and-bailey situation. I find that I'm put off by this sort of rhetoric not because I disagree that having varied and challenging artistic tastes is of value, but because I at least suspect that I am actually being called to narrow and limit my artistic tastes. Indeed, your OP here is all about how our society needs to be less permissive - how we should permit fewer things, fewer styles, less art.

I at least suspect that I am actually being called to narrow and limit my artistic tastes.

What makes you think that?

Because the complaints focus on the cringe art that the targets of the criticism are associated with, and not on the good art that they are failing to engage 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