site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   31481 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 7, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

While the EU is nominally in favor of cultural diversity, it means they will subsidize folk dresses and bland exhibits with 27 flags. It does not mean they will allow an Eastern European country to be against gay marriage.

A bizarre assertion, given that, according to my count, 13 of the EU's 27 members don't allow gay marriage.

It does not mean they will allow a country to practice eugenics

Eugenics is not part of the traditional culture of any country. The reason it's not implemented anywhere is a lack of popular support; it has nothing to do with the EU.

or protect key industries.

This has moved well beyond preserving culture and into plain economics. The EU does in fact protect traditional products. What the EU doesn't allow is protectionist restrictions that are meant to benefit one country's companies over those of another.

Eugenics is not part of the traditional culture of any country. The reason it's not implemented anywhere is a lack of popular support; it has nothing to do with the EU.

In Denmark, the Danish Cytogenetic Central Register, shows an average of 98% of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome before birth are aborted each year.

Denmark is also famous for exporting tall blue-eyed babies via sperm donation catalogues

So, examples of currently active positive and negative eugenics going on there.

And has the EU interfered in any of this?

And has the EU interfered in any of this?

Presumably not, but that's because both of these examples are poor ones, in each case coupling a small dose of what globohomo hates with a large dose of what globohomo likes, making it an aggregate win for the globalist homogenisers.

Abort disabled people? This is not globohomo. But look at it from the other side: abort disabled people, and we see that it is in fact smack in line with the no-questions-asked abortifactants on demand that the cosmopolitan class loves.

Encourage single mothers to have blonde blue eyed babies? Bad. Encourage single mothers to have blonde blue eyed babies? Good, smash the patriarchy, children don't need fathers anyway.

You're assuming certain modes of thinking from your outgroup to the point where you have to massage the assumed framing of those situations into quite tortured angles.

Compare: "Genocide white people? Bad. Genocide white people? Good, everyone knows white right-wingers love genocide. Now you see how anti-white tendencies in the West are an aggregate win for the white supremacists".

You're assuming certain modes of thinking from your outgroup to the point where you have to massage the assumed framing of those situations into quite tortured angles.

I don't think it's tortured at all. Furthermore, my proposal actually serves to resolve the contradictions of a brown-scare hegemony thumbs-up-ing eugenic abortions/inseminations. Where's your explanation?

Compare: Genocide "white people"? Bad. "Genocide" white people? Good

Characterising my argument as

"Xy Bad, xY Good" is always true

has to be some sort of strawmanning record. To speak plainly: I am suggesting that, in the cases I proposed, the noncentral effects (preservation of pro-choice norms, increasing the proportion of (biological) fatherless households) really do serve the homogenisers' purpose more than the central effects (anti-dysgenic abortions, pro-eugenic inseminations) harm it. You're going to have a difficult time arguing that a normalisation of genocide improves right-winger's chances more than literally committing white genocide harms it.

my proposal actually serves to resolve the contradictions of a brown-scare hegemony thumbs-up-ing eugenic abortions/inseminations. Where's your explanation?

Admitting one doesn't have a good answer to a contradiction is strictly better for light-making purposes than throwing out a bad answer. And when one's best solution is "group X likes measure xY despite Y because x", I must assume they haven't looked very hard. For the record, my first assumption would be "the group is less X and more Y than Butlerian thinks if they like xY".

The so-called "globohomo" ideology has shown itself to be extremely intolerant of eugenics for the purposes of producing white blond blue-eyed children, so I hope you can see why I highly doubt tacking on "single mothers" suddenly makes it worth it.

Didn't say it did, I was just pointing out that it was implemented somewhere, and is popular

A bizarre assertion, given that, according to my count, 13 of the EU's 27 members don't allow gay marriage.

you're right. I changed it to 'gay rights'.

Eugenics is not part of the traditional culture of any country. The reason it's not implemented anywhere is a lack of popular support; it has nothing to do with the EU.

It's an example of an edgy policy that would never be allowed by the EU. It illustrates that the allowed diversity is only surface level.

You're needlessly adversarial.

What the EU doesn't allow is protectionist restrictions that are meant to benefit one country's companies over those of another.

Which is exactly what I meant (and said). Your point about protecting local cheeses kind of proves my thesis.

Finally - why are you doing this?

you're right. I changed it to 'gay rights'.

"Gay rights" is vague. What specifically does the EU prohibit, and how does it enforce the prohibition?

It's an example of an edgy policy that would never be allowed by the EU. It illustrates that the allowed diversity is only surface level.

May I ask for a more realistic example? Something that a significant number of people in an EU country might actually support?

Which is exactly what I meant (and said). Your point about protecting local cheeses kind of proves my thesis.

Yes, a trade bloc works to facilitate trade between its members. I am glad we agree. But what does this have to do with protecting cultural diversity?

Finally - why are you doing this?

I am from one of the newer EU member countries, and I don't think the EU is harming my country's traditions and culture. I feel like the EU is being misrepresented here, and I wanted to provide another perspective, lest this forum's mostly American readers get the wrong impression.

May I ask for a more realistic example? Something that a significant number of people in an EU country might actually support?

Death penalty/life imprisonment without parole. CoE deems both illegal and membership in it, and thus acceptance of ECHR authority,. is required to join the EU.

Yet at least in France more than 54% of the population is in favour of allowing the state to have the option to take someones life.

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