site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   23043 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.

Where before the expectation was to dress formally in the office, now "smart casual" rules the day (if that)

It's useful to have a bit of historical perspective of what's considered acceptable or necessary. For example, the tuxedo--currently the most formal of men's wear--was originally casual-wear among upper-class:

The tuxedo ... traces its origins back to 1865 when Prince Edward VII introduced it as a stylish alternative to the traditional tailcoat. This groundbreaking garment, initially referred to as a "dinner jacket," was tailored by Henry Poole & Co. and featured a sleek black jacket paired with matching pants, which made it ideal for dining and more casual occasions.

It took about two decades for the tux to get accepted as formal wear--in US, which as now are far more into being informal:

The tuxedo gained popularity in the United States in 1886, thanks to James Brown Potter and his wife Cora, who famously wore it to the Autumn Ball in Tuxedo Park, New York. This event marked a pivotal moment in fashion history, as the tuxedo began to shift from informal evening wear to an accepted form of formal dress.

Another example: the corset. I remember watching a Perry Mason episode (thought I can't remember which one) where the female witness gets scolded for not wearing a corset to court. The exact quote: "Save the jingle for the husband." That's either late 1950's or early 1960's.

Another example: jeans, which were worker's clothes.

I am very happy that, when I go in public, I am not expected to put on a corset and stockings and wear heeled pumps, à la 1950's. My knees thank me that I can wear sneakers; my legs are much warmer in the winter in jeans or warm cargo pants, and it's nobody's business what underwear--if any--I choose to wear. If that means that I have to encounter people who chose to go out in crocks, sweatpants and a tube-top, then that's a trade-off I am willing to take.

While we are at it, I will also throw in the Chinese foot binding:

It has been estimated that by the 19th century 40–50% of all Chinese women may have had bound feet, rising to almost 100% among upper-class Han Chinese women.

There are many historical examples of norms and expectations that are either arbitrary or actively counterproductive. Therefore, when a current norm or expectation is getting relaxed, I would examine it on its own merit before decreeing it bad. Is a business suit really superior than "smart casual" for all white-collar work?

(Personal anecdote: I know an NVIDIA software engineer whose boss explicitly warned him to not wear a tie to work. In software engineering lore, the shirt-and-tie is associated with the famous IBM dress-code for its engineers, and therefore it's associated with stodgy, inflexible corporate ethos.)

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