site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   26365 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 23, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As Scott has Noticed, humans are remarkably libertarian only when it comes to romantic love. This is the one area that has survived accusations of racism, sexism or transphobia. You can debate this all you want but people will always be free to “fetishize” other races if they want. I don’t think people even mind being fetishized themselves by their partners, those who complain always seem like humble bragging to me

A more interesting question - is miscegenation healthy? Obviously from a liberal perspective this is a taboo question to even raise. But hapas for instance often seem to argue they shouldn’t even exist, as though they are a crime against nature. And I’ve seen some research to suggest they have far higher rates of depression than other groups

As Scott has Noticed, humans are remarkably libertarian only when it comes to romantic love. This is the one area that has survived accusations of racism, sexism or transphobia. You can debate this all you want but people will always be free to “fetishize” other races if they want.

Free legally, perhaps, but not socially. And, of course, it depends on Who? Whom?

Men's preferences, such as that for female youth and chastity, are demonized as creepy fetishes. Women's preferences, such as that for male height and status, are deemed valid (to the extent they're admitted to exist, lest women appear more shallow and less Wonderful than previously thought). This goes for racial preferences, as well, but there are also differences based on which sex-race combination is the preferer and which is the preferred.

Here's the reaction in mainstream discourse when a man of $[Y] background says he prefers $[X] women:

White Women East Asian Women South Asian Women Latina Women Black Women
White Man Racist Nazi Bigot who fetishizes and stereotypes East Asian women as feminine and submissive; possible pedophile Bigot who fetishizes and stereotypes South Asian women as chaste and traditional Bigot who fetishizes and stereotypes latinas as fiery and sensual sex objects Might be okay, might be bigot who fetishizes and views black women as subhuman sex objects
East Asian Man Self-hating, white-worshipping, internalized racist who fetishizes white women Feels entitled and possessive of "his" women Hm, okay Hm, okay Hm, okay
South Asian Man Self-hating, white-worshipping, internalized racist who fetishizes white women Fetishizes and stereotypes East Asian women as feminine and submissive; possible pedophile Feels entitled and possessive of "his" women Hm, okay Hm, okay
Latino Man Conditioned by Eurocentric standards of beauty and victim of internalized racism, but slay, King! Might be victim of internalized racism, but slay, King! Might be victim of internalized racism, but slay, King! Might be okay, might feel entitled and possessive of "his" women Slay, King!
Black Man Conditioned by Eurocentric standards of beauty and victim of internalized racism, but slay, King! Might be victim of internalized racism, but slay, King! Might be victim of internalized racism, but slay, King! Might be victim of internalized racism, but slay, King! Slay, King!

Reaction when a woman of $[X] background says she prefers $[Y] men:

White Men East Asian Men South Asian Men Latino Men Black Men
White Woman Racist Nazi Weird, must be victim of K-Pop and anime propaganda Weird, must be victim of yoga and Bollywood propaganda Stunning and brave and should be encouraged for all Stunning and brave and should be encouraged for all
East Asian Woman Victim of internalized racism and conditioned by white male privilege Victim of Stockholm Syndrome and familial patriarchy Might be okay, might be victim of internalized racism Stunning and brave and should be encouraged for all Stunning and brave and should be encouraged for all
South Asian Woman Victim of internalized racism and conditioned by white male privilege Weird, must be victim of K-Pop and anime propaganda Victim of Stockholm Syndrome and familial patriarchy Stunning and brave and should be encouraged for all Stunning and brave and should be encouraged for all
Latina Woman Victim of internalized racism and conditioned by white male privilege Weird, must be victim of internalized racism and K-Pop and anime propaganda Weird, must be victim of internalized racism and yoga and Bollywood propaganda Victim of Stockholm Syndrome and familial patriarchy Stunning and brave and should be encouraged for all
Black Woman Victim of internalized racism and conditioned by white male privilege Weird, must be victim of internalized racism and K-Pop and anime propaganda Weird, must be victim of internalized racism and yoga and Bollywood propaganda Might be okay, but might be victim of internalized racism Stunning and brave and should be encouraged for all

Nor have sexual preferences been exempted from accusations of transphobia. Remember the colossal seethe that #SuperStraight triggered? People were doxxing and trying to cancel the young man who started it all, and his mother too. The subreddit saw a meteoric rise, turning into the SuperSexuality expanded cinematic universe (SuperGay, SuperLesbian, etc.), before getting nuked within a day or two.

What was funny was not only the bait and in-on-the-joke posting by rdrama types, but the heartfelt effortposts from LGB persons about their long-held frustrations with transsexuals invading their spaces and demanding to be treated the same as their desired sex. Despite their nominal alliance, it makes sense that LGB persons might have more exposure to and thus more frustrations with transsexuals than straight persons, having greater probability living in similar locations and running in similar social circles.

Yes if you’re a male and voice racial preferences you’re going to be demonized, especially if you’re white. But I think this is because males aren’t really supposed to have sexual preferences, period. Talk about how you prefer slim women and youlll be chastised too, although I doubt any average guy will care. Women just feel threatened by the idea anyone could find them unattractive for any reason ever, and society and popular media will cater to women’s feelings as a default usually.

But you as a man can still date whomever you want/can, and society won’t stop you or hinder you beyond some angry female friend cockblockers anyway, and those are easily brushed aside.

Please please please make this table into a template image. It's wasted hidden in the depths of the culture war thread.

Image

Miscegenation is definitely healthier than inbreeding , there's a point where the two genomes from your parents end up so far apart it starts getting unhealthy but humans are remarkably similar to each other as a species, I don't think for any two humans, even San Bushman + Aboriginal Australian pairings etc. are so far apart the distance becomes a negative.

there's a point where the two genomes from your parents end up so far apart it starts getting unhealthy

What would be an example

humans are remarkably similar to each other as a species

I wonder about this. SS Africans for instance have no Neanderthal DNA, unlike all other races. There is some speculation that there are other hominid species of DNA in each race unique to them. That suggests there is at least some degree of species variation.

What would be an example

It's so prevalent it even has a standard name (although it's still less prevalent than the opposite where crossing different strains leads to improved fitness): Outbreeding Depression.

From the article:

Examples of the second mechanism include stickleback fish, which developed benthic and limnetic forms when separated. When crosses occurred between the two forms, there were low spawning rates. However, when the same forms mated with each other and no crossing occurred between lakes, the spawning rates were normal. This pattern has also been studied in Drosophila and leaf beetles, where the F1 progeny and later progeny resulted in intermediate fitness between the two parents. This circumstance is more likely to happen and occurs more quickly with selection than genetic drift.

That suggests there is at least some degree of species variation.

Of course, we aren't identical. I'm saying more that any two random humans no matter are still more alike than each other genetically than for most other things we group into the same species. For example if you were to look at Maize you can get kernels in the same head of corn which are more than an order of magnitude more different from each other genetically than any two humans are from each other. Similar less extreme results hold for lots of bacteria etc. If we were to be as strict in calling things separate species as we are to call humans and chimps separate species we'd probably have at least an order and a half of magnitude more known bacteria species than we do today.

I meant an example from two humans, not biology writ large.

Anyhow the definition of what constitutes a species is a matter of debate within biology

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