site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   27860 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah, maybe communism is a better example.

Like wokeness, Communism only had the support of a few elites. Famously, the Bolshevik's "going to the people" initiative failed because the common people actually liked God and empire. Nevertheless, communists took over Russia and ran it for more than 70 years. Once they seized power, the social climbers came on board.

Four years ago, it looked like woke was going the same way – not because of true belief but because it was personally advantageous to be woke (and incredibly dangerous to speak out against it).

incredibly dangerous to speak out against it

Hyperbole much? Surely a contributing factor to the rise of wokeness is the utter spinelessness of most people. It was amazing to see again and again, the woke attacking some man of considerable achievements with no apparent woke beliefs, which would conclude with him delivering an abject groveling apology. Or the university presidents and professors who went along with radicals they clearly didn’t agree with. The grad students who traded ‘DEI statements’ for a job. Or you, reader, who put his pronouns in his profile.

Part of the reason is, you aren’t allowed to call men pussies anymore (in polite company). In the past, those who prostrated themselves in this way would have been shamed “Be a man and say no fuck off when you mean no.“ The taboo-ization of manliness has left society wide open for this kind of agreeable-emotional scam ideology, which reinforces the taboo further. Wokeness is both a cause and a symptom of it.

We used to reproduce sexually, which gave us some genetic diversity. After we all turned ourselves into female clones doing parthenogenesis, we became vulnerable to viruses. But thankfully for us middle class folk, through cultural isolation, some intrepid billionaires and rednecks avoided being gelded, and so the woke virus was ultimately stopped.

Uh no bud, I don't care for the spinelessness of most people either, and your second paragraph is entirely on point but the woke mob were absolutely capable of destroying people's livelihoods if they told them to fuck off - that's how my life got ruined. That's why everyone became fucking spineless, because they watched what happened to the people who said no. And what happened to their families, because it was never confined to just the target. So even your family would start distancing themselves from you, because "some of my colleagues don't feel comfortable coming if you are there".

Who did you tell to fuck off?

My boss. Although tbh I didn’t care for the job. I like taking l long holidays after a few years' work.

the woke mob were absolutely capable of destroying people's livelihoods if they told them to fuck off

I'm not saying they weren't, but like hydro says a lot of people were far more afraid than they realistically had reason to. Also, defending one's ideas is not supposed to be costless. I would prefer to lose out on a job than debase myself with a DEI statement. And that's before any moral implications, because all those who went along were complicit in making other people's lives hell. I'm sorry your life got ruined, that's obviously above and beyond what can be expected of people, but I do think they have a duty to offer resistance when they disagree.

I do think they have a duty to offer resistance when they disagree.

I hope the last decade convinces others you are right, but I've long since lost faith in most of humanity.

What are you talking about? Female clones? Gelding?

"Ending masculinity" in males leaves you with female clones. Metaphorically, you've cut off their balls. This is unpleasant by itself, but there's a double meaning: eunuch is an insult among men, their high pitched voice is a source of ridicule, and they're assumed to have a weak character, especially among ancient authors.

That’s dumb.

Metaphor or not, don’t you think there’s more to womanhood than lack-of-balls?

Yes, there’s also agreeableness, emotionality, conventionality. I don’t really like femininity, especially not in men. Am I allowed to say that, or is only masculinity subject to censure? Men’s personalities have been one-sidedly filed down by three decades of this.

Right, which is why eunuchs are obviously not female clones. Even metaphorically.

Also, only three decades? I was sure you’d go back at least to the Victorians.

Eunuchs get assigned feminine qualities. To me, you seem hyper-sensitive to any insult to womanhood, even abstract and metaphorical - as required by modern etiquette. I'm criticizing gender roles, what's the big deal?

Also, only three decades? I was sure you’d go back at least to the Victorians.

We're explaining wokeness here, and in this extreme form it's recent. 30 years ago we had PC so it fits.

As to your implied jibe that I'm a reactionary who wants women in the kitchen, I've heard it all before, and you couldn't be more wrong.

In the past, those who prostrated themselves in this way would have been shamed “Be a man and say no fuck off when you mean no.

If you opposed woke in that way, you would be fired and/or ostracized. It's not that nobody did it; it's that they were canceled for doing so.

There were people who opposed wokeness that way and are still there. Wokeness always had more bark than bite.

The true answer is, of course, somewhere in the middle.

Joe Rogan stood up to wokeness and got away with it. James Damore didn't.

If you have independent power and wealth then you can express heterodox beliefs and get away with it.

But if your power and wealth depends on an institution (such as a government, university, or corporation) then you have to bend the knee or face consequences. Most people are in this group.

On the balance, I don't have a lot of sympathy for @Tree's argument. People have had their kids taken away because of their position on transgender issues. "Just man up" doesn't cut it.

I mostly agree with you- a CEO could not simply say that he has fewer black engineers because HBD. I do think that the power of woke is overstated but, yes, there’s definitely people who are right to fear it. Just want to address this one:

People have had their kids taken away because of their position on transgender issues.

Which people? Jeff Younger lost custody because Texas courts always favor the woman; his position on trans had nothing to do with it. There are probably similar cases, but parents who agree with each other that the correct response to a trans child is ‘no you’re not’ succeed in getting their child to desist.

Perplexity found one. Kudos because this stuff that normally gets buried. Google is not your friend.

https://www.osvnews.com/2024/02/20/catholic-parents-ask-high-court-to-correct-dangerous-precedent-on-parental-rights-trans-identity/

Not only did they lose custody, but they weren't even permitted to talk to their child about their gender. Insane. And this is Indiana, a deep red state.

The Coxes lost custody of the then-16-year-old in 2021. The Indiana Department of Child Services petitioned a Madison County court, alleging that the teen’s physical and mental condition was in danger and that there was a threat of self-harm as a result of the parents’ physical and emotional abuse.

A case manager’s investigation found that the teen had an untreated eating disorder, that A.C.’s parents had pulled the child from school and discontinued therapy, and that A.C. was contemplating self-harm, according to court records. The case manager’s report also found the teen’s mother used vulgar and demeaning language.

The Coxes denied the allegations, and Indiana officials, following an investigation, conceded that they were unsubstantiated.

But the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the child’s removal from the home, concluding that the arguments over gender identity had contributed to the eating disorder even though agreeing that the Coxes were fit parents. The appellate court upheld a gag order, which it said was allowed under both the state and federal constitutions, over the Coxes imposing their religious views on gender.

“The appeals court left in place a gag order so the parents could not discuss gender with their child other than at family therapy appointments,” Windham said.

According to you, nybbler, there was never anything to be done, it was an unstoppable steamroller, and all rebels would die for nothing. With an attitude like that, it could never have been stopped.

It has not been stopped. There is merely a pause. Perhaps a legit one, possibly a false one to draw out the remaining opposition so they can be crushed in the next push.

It's worth noting that the October Revolution in Russia was in effect a military coup, but led by an organised faction within the lower ranks rather than an ambitious colonel. The core Bolshevik constituency was the Petrograd garrison.

The reason why there wasn't a communist takeover in Germany is mostly that the USPD and Spartakists were unable to organise the soldiers the way the Bolsheviks were, so the German army remained under the effective control of their officers and the Ebert government.

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