site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   27672 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.

But gobs and gobs of the core purpose of the internet is to simply convey information, as one would have in the past by going to the local printer and then handing out pamphlets. It seems that people really want to break this centuries old consensus, just like how the 90s consensus has crumbled.

The "centuries old consensus" was a useful fiction that is exposed by relatively free propagation of information via the internet.

The current consensus was formulated during a period in history in which everyone got their information from the same set of sources, they were reading the same newspaper watching the same one-of-four news channels. They all ate the same name-brands of food. But the "consensus" only existed because of the information propagated by the collective sources of information... that is the root of propaganda, to propagate.

Biden is absolutely correct that a Liberal consensus, or really any other sort of consensus for that matter, is only possible with organizing the propagation of information and the internet is an existential threat to that capability. Of course Biden's nonsense that the "people must govern" has never been the case, and neither is it the case that the "consensus" that existed through the 90s was formulated by people freely buying printing presses and reaching agreements through rational argumentation on core philosophical questions. That didn't happen, it's a fiction used to give legitimacy to power.

The post-WWII consensus is not centuries old, and it was not created through agreement after rational debate, it was created through culture war and the top-down organization and propagation of information. The internet threatens this order. AI, on the other hand, presents the government a solution to also tame the internet to be a tool for this purpose, as originally conceived. Blast the whole world with nothing except the Truth of our Consensus...

They align the values of the AI according to their "values" and biases and identity and ethnic agendas, and then the AI enforces that agenda onto the stream of information. That's the ultimate objective, it's not about "free press" in any sense at all.

ethnic agendas

Which ethnicity?

It's an SS post, he always means Jews when he goes on about ethnicities doing bad things.

Is he wrong?

There's a motte and bailey on the subject - on the one hand it's perfectly true that Jews often do things in the interests of Jews. Everybody occasionally does things in the interests of groups to which they belong, so it's utterly unsurprising that, for instance, Jews tend to be quite pro-Israel, or that Jews are more committed to fighting anti-semitism than non Jews, or that Jews are more invested in Holocause remembrance.

On the other hand, what SS usually argues goes a long way beyond that, to the point of holding that Jews are a uniquely diabolical race of manipulators who infiltrate and control other societies.

The practical upshot, I would argue, is that you should automatically disregard anything that SS says that involves Jews, and because practically everything he posts is about Jews, that means you should ignore most of what he says full stop. I realise that sounds pretty harsh, but he is a very focused poster.

to the point of holding that Jews are a uniquely diabolical race of manipulators who infiltrate and control other societies.

Wow! Where did he get this idea, where did it originate? Are there any Jewish texts that talk about manipulating non-Jewish societies, or that Jews should seek to control them?

I realise that sounds pretty harsh, but he is a very focused poster.

No, I understand, thank you.

Yes, I've read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Or do you mean some other text?

None of this JAQing off. Speak plainly. You were specifically warned about this quite recently--and on the exact same subject.

Three day ban, this time.

I'm not really here to argue for or against his point. I'm just saying, that's his schtick.

I happen to think that 1791 is indeed "centuries old".

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