site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   36583 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.

I'm preparing to write an effort post steel-manning the claim that communism (or socialism, or leftism, or whatever word you prefer) is a religion and using that steel-man to make additional arguments and observations about the culture war. Is anyone aware of previous discussions on the motte on this topic? If so, kindly link those discussions in the comments. Please also link any non-motte sources as well.

Given my intended topic and scope, the resulting text may not fit into the current 10k character limit that applies to comments in the CW thread. What are the rules here? Did the multi_part_lock feature migrate from reddit? Do we request a variance to post a thread to the main page from the mods?

Pls write this I will disagree heavily ;)

If you're referring to general social-justice attitudes, John McWhorter discusses this in his book "Woke Racism" (also published serially on his substack as "The Elect"), as well as in other pieces.

James Lindsay has a very good presentation about it. The problem is, that it requires many tangents actually explaining certain concepts and definitions. So it for sure is daunting task, but I like his definition when you have to have system of philosophy, meaning cosmology, epistemology, axiology and sociology that is then united and directed by theology which makes it a system of religion.

I follow James' podcast closely and he has been working this angle for some time. However, I'm not sure if he has taken the time to put this argument to paper in its full form. If I'm wrong about that please link me. In any event, I think a sourced, written, and expanded version of his argument is long overdue.

The Socialist Phenomenon discusses this, go through the subreddit with Camas – you'll find a couple of my posts in relevant threads.

This is excellent. Thank you.

Just...do the post and response thing? I don't know if locking is available, but as long as you post in reasonable close succession, seems like it'd be fine.

Also, communism is not socialism is especially not leftism. Especially if you're going to use more recent talking points (wokeness, etc.) to argue religiosity.

@crushedoranges has the right of it. I anticipate that the majority of responses from both good-faith and bad-faith commun/left/marx/etc.-ists will center on this definitional argument.

However, I am not concerned with how various flavors of communists define themselves because I intend to offer a definition, based upon specified beliefs and behaviors, which is generally applicable. By analogy, if I were to make an argument about the religiosity of Christians, I would not give much credence to Pope Innocent III's insistence that my claims can't apply to Cathars because Cathars aren't Christian.

I intend to argue that the practical differences between communism/marxism/etc. are illusory and that their commonality as shades of a shared religion is their defining feature.

I've noticed that terminally online (and dishonest) leftists can jump into the bailey of 'your valid and rigorous critique of x does not apply to y' because Marxism describes socialism as a stage of communism, or socialism is the end state of communism, or to be left is to be socialist, or the only true leftists are communist...

What you see that is an error of impreciseness is more of an general fly-swatter to those arguments. You don't have to be an orthodox Marxist-Leninist to know what exactly we're talking about here.

There is virtue to precision. I can't know exactly what we're talking about because of dishonest commenters clouding the issue. For example, if the OP were acting in bad faith, he could use "I'm just preempting the Bad People" as his own motte while smuggling in assumptions. Doing so wouldn't change the fact that conflation makes for a sloppy argument. Arguing with clarity is essential if he wants to demonstrate good faith.

A steelman ought to hold up to serious criticism, not just motte-and-bailey practitioners.

Also, communism is not socialism is especially not leftism. Especially if you're going to use more recent talking points (wokeness, etc.) to argue religiosity.

This is crucial, @Baila. It's hardly a steel-man if you're not clear on what, specifically, you are even referring to.

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