site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   36586 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 24, 2022

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.

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Short answer. Buy in

I'm on record as having said that if you really want defeat radical Islam what you you need to do is say "fuck realpolitik", bulldoze every al-Wahhabi mosque in the area, and build a McDonalds and a school for girls on the empty lot. Anyone who objects gets a visit from 1st MEF.

Back in the day such an approach was seen as just good sense, these days morality is a bit more relative, the public a bit more squeamish, and ironically this makes violence more likely.

Hanging Indians who went against western moral sensibilities is not how the British have conquered India. It’s rather an obsession from the period when their hold on the country was already waning. The people who actually conquered India were either pirates who just wanted to loot and couldn’t care less about Indian widows, or people like Fraser who had great respect for the Indian way of life and almost assimilated with the local elite.

Same with your analogy of fighting against something called “radical Islam”. When the west was making its successful inroads into the Arab world they didn’t make much fuss about the fact that many of these countries were theocratic kingdoms with literal slavery. It is a 2000s phenomenon that the west tried to settle on a civilisational mission to fight against Islam, and it has catastrophically failed. It made westerners lose a lot of influence and self confidence and is ultimately abandoned at this point.

When the west was making its successful inroads into the Arab world they didn’t make much fuss about the fact that many of these countries were theocratic kingdoms with literal slavery.

The 19th century French invasions of Algeria was justified (partially) on the basis of ending the Barbary slave trade by force. It was also referenced in Napolean's adventures in Egypt and Syria. I think "literally slavery" is something the West is (too) often willing to overlook, but not universally so.

Important to note here in the context that Barbary slave trade included raiding European/Christian ships as well as European coastal villages. This is not as big of an anti slavery crusade as you imply, but more specifically European naval powers defending their own people.

Back in the day such an approach was seen as just good sense,

But it didn't work. Look at the Goa Inquisition. The Portuguese went to every length they could to extirpate Hinduism in Goa and, while there obviously were lots of conversions, in general it didn't really work.

But it didn't work.

Didn't it? Are you seriously making the claim that Sati is still practiced in modern day India?

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