site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   35715 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 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.

Nancy Pelosi is white and finds political advantage in being against white privilege. Joe Biden for instance used to say 'we already have a nigger mayor, we don't need any more nigger bigshots' and 'I don't want my kids to grow up in a racial jungle'. He now talks about how it's great that the US is going to be minority white, how 'it's the source of our strength'... These people sway with the wind. Their words don't necessarily have any sincerity behind them. They say what they think will help them (or what they are given to say).

The existence of defectors doesn't disprove the existence of groups.

Anyway, HR doesn't need to come up with a foolproof definition of white or Asian or diversity if they want more diversity. They just do it. In Australia there are statutory declarations of aboriginality that people need to get affirmative action jobs. But no such thing is strictly necessary. There is no definition of 'culturally and linguistically diverse people', the unwieldy phrase positively defies definition. Yet it works. And so does white, for the very same reason.

You're missing my point. Race in the US is not a physical phenomenon it is a cultural one. We all recognize this on some level which is how people like Pelosi are able to talk about "whites" without including themselves or refer to Kenti-Jackson as the first "black" supreme court justice without a hint of irony. Its the background assumption behind Biden's bit about how you aren't really black if you vote rebublican. We know that when people talk about "black" they aren't talking about people of sub-Saharan ancestry, they're talking a bout a specific sort. Do you follow?

Black is both physical-genetic AND cultural but the genetic level is most important.

You can be ethnically white and act in the most black ways, that makes you less white than you would otherwise be in a holistic sense. But even so, you wouldn't become black. Elizabeth Warren isn't Native American even if she does a few rituals, whereas an actual genetically native american who acts like Elizabeth Warren could still be native american. People might say 'she's not acting like a native american' because she has all this money and poise and prestige and a certain kind of status.

The specific 'sort' you're talking about are MORE black than other blacks but other blacks are still black. Joe Biden is talking about precisely this, he means 'you're not acting black as you should be' if you vote Republican. But voting Republican doesn't automatically make you white, they still get classified as black Republican voters.

Likewise certain east-asians (Koreans and Japanese) are more white than others, so they don't get as much affirmative action and people call them model minorities. But they're not fully white, just more white.

but the genetic level is most important.

Not to the vast majority of Americans it is not. That is my point.

or refer to Kenti-Jackson as the first "black" supreme court justice without a hint of irony.

I have literally never heard anybody do this, because no matter what anyone thinks of Clarence Thomas, Thurgood Marshall preceded him on the Court by more than twenty years.

Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and multiple mainstream news outlets have all referred to her as such at one time or another. Most recently NBC and the Huffington Post when reporting on the big necklace she wore to the Inauguration. Im still not clear on why exactly the necklace was newsworthy but there you go.

IIRC, several journalists have made this error. Example

An article on Huffington Post about Justice Jackson's talisman originally included this line:

After all, Jackson is the first Black Supreme Court justice to sit on the court. "Even folks unfamiliar with its cultural significance can recognize it as a meaningful choice."

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