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.

I don’t mind arrogance as such. You can catch me admitting that normal people are pretty stupid, too. But that doesn’t mean their lives and hobbies are meaningless and their thoughts ‘false consciousness’.

That passage we discuss is not just arrogance, it’s unjustified arrogance, it’s wrong. Hobby readers read ‘with all their attention’ too. And their hobby of reading is ‘part and parcel of their lives’ too.

You speculate that what I wrote reflects some sort of ego-driven rejection of others’ superiority, that I’m offended (and you’re allowed to do that, even though I think it’s incorrect). You form a model of my personality based on my writings. Well, that’s just what I did with his. It jumps up at me that he’s someone who resents the happiness of others….. (((((((((((“under capitalism”)))))))). That last part is just a fig leaf.

Paraphrasing adorno: ‘people should have no hobbies, no poetry, no beautiful buildings, their lives and thoughts are meaningless. (((((((((((again, “under capitalism”))))))))’. There’s superiority in that statement, but it’s not the superiority that bothers me. It’s the hostility to joy, beauty, meaning, life.

I just want to make it clear that it can be considered in isolation.

Death of the author, huh? Even ignoring all context, I still think “reading with all my attention” is pretentious, describing something as “part and parcel of my life” is trite, and hobbies are not mock-worthy. But whatever floats your boat, as long as I don't have to hear it during smalltalk.

Hobby readers read ‘with all their attention’ too. And their hobby of reading is ‘part and parcel of their lives’ too.

I disagree, for at least some subset of "hobby readers". I think there are many people who are poor readers, or who read with only partial attention. Case in point.

And surely it's gotten even worse since the introduction of smartphones.

but it’s not the superiority that bothers me. It’s the hostility to joy, beauty, meaning, life.

There's nothing that is hostile to joy or beauty in the conception of a meaningful life that Adorno sketched in the passage I originally quoted. In fact I think it's very beautiful. That's why I originally quoted it.

I still think “reading with all my attention” is pretentious

I don't think it's pretentious. I think it's a concept that should be taken very seriously.

describing something as “part and parcel of my life” is trite

It is not.

I believe these are our most substantive points of disagreement. I'm happy to discuss any of these points further.

I think we squeezed what there was to squeeze here. Until next time.

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