site banner
PaperclipPerfector  15d ago (text post)   28440 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 6, 2025

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

rather beside the point but does Hanania look particularly ghoulish in this video? Almost seems like he's wearing eyeshadow/liner

because he's not white. looking good on video typically requires fully European phenotype , although blacks pull it off too. Jews look the worst. that is what I have observed at least. whites tend to have a more angular or square face and solid lower jaw which looks better on video. But jews make up for it by being articulate, high verbal IQ.

Hanania has a relatively European phenotype, just a strange one. If you look up Palestinian Christians (ie. his people) they’re relatively phenotypically diverse but many could pass as Sicilians. Jews are also diverse, even discounting half-gentiles like Chalamet and Johansson, Paul Rudd is 100% ashkenazi and widely considered a handsome actor (for his age etc but also in general).

Paul Rudd is 100% ashkenazi

Press X to doubt. He's like at least 50% Italian by SOME kind of proxy.

In the sense that the most widely-accepted theory is that all Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Jewish-Roman intermarriage in the first few centuries CE, sure.

That's just what being an ashkenazi is: Some sort of combination between Levantine and Italian.

Paul Rudd is 100% ashkenazi and widely considered a handsome actor (for his age etc but also in general).

He's considered handsome for a comedic actor.

Hanania is white. He's an ugly effeminate white, but he is white. Nobody looks at him and thinks he's brown.

Generally speaking Levantine Christians like Hanania look relatively European. The oddities of Hanania’s appearance are related to just having a weird and slightly sinister face, which is something that can happen to anyone of any tribe.

Well yes. Some of my best friends are Maronite or Melkite, and they just look Greek. Levantine Christians have been considered white for ages and ages.

How do you square this with how many Hollywood celebrities (particularly actresses), whose job it is to look good on video, are Jewish? Some of the most attractive and telegenic women in the world are Ashkenazi.

I posit it's easier for jewish women . the difference is not as great between gentile vs. Jewish women

His skin also looks unusually smooth.

Presuming this is more how he looks normally: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YnvZto0do5o

I'd guess that he had particularly bad bags under his eyes that day and is either using a beauty filter to try to cover them up or he had a friend apply some studio makeup.

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