site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   33248 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There is a number of people on this forum who clearly would like to see it as a place for smart right-wingers to organise and rally, rather than a carefully tended neutral ground. Unfortunately, the mods don't seem terribly interested in acting against it unless directly called out for inaction, so the only way to reduce it would probably be to persuade the majority on a grassroots level that it is not in their interest either.

Indeed, it's quite disappointing what this place has become. Good posters like TracingWoodgrains have been banned or moved on. Shitposters from CultureWarRoundup have moved back in, telling us constantly how we have to hate the outgroup with every fiber of our being, and any notion that we should try understanding them is akin to betrayal. The mods are apparently asleep at the wheel. Zorba, the original creator of the site, hasn't posted in 3 months, and hasn't really participated that much in nearly a year.

The shitposters from the CWR never left, although I suppose they used to be better behaved.

Yeah and I don't do it constantly.

and any notion that we should try understanding them is akin to betrayal

Do you think you made a good attempt at understanding the outgroup you described in your post?

Yes, they're fully in the tank for conflict theory. Look at a post like this and try to disagree.

Aside from FC's point, how does conflict theory see any notion that people should try understanding their opponents as akin to betrayal?

Did you read Kulak's post? His general idea is that allowing for discussion just legitimizes evil people who think things like that it's OK for people to rape white girls.

Did you read mine? I'm asking about conflict theory not Kulak, FC already gave you a response why he's not a great example for you.

...Kulak is your example of a typical poster? With a post about how he doesn't post here any more?

Kulak is a particularly blatant example but plenty of people here are working off the same template.

I am a reasonably prolific poster who has argued for some time that Conflict Theory offers clearly superior predictive power. The difference between kulak and myself, I believe, is that I am capable of communicating on the spectrum this forum is designed for, and he is not. If you need an example of posters being "all in" on conflict theory, I think I'm probably one of the better picks. There are others, but most of the ones more extreme than me tend to get argued against and modded fairly frequently.

I think using my posts would work less-well, though, because I generally don't write unhinged rants arguing for ceaseless war of all against all, and I generally try to back up my arguments with solid evidence. Likewise, people who appeal to all the great old posters who used to represent Blue Tribe here tend to not remember how some of these pivotal conversations actually went on the Blue end. People don't remember the chronic advocacy for lawless violence, the defenses of the indefensible, the absurd behavior, and the blatant trolling campaigns when it's their side doing it. I miss the old days, and I'm dedicated to trying to keep the conversation running as long as possible, but if you think the breakdown is the fault of nasty right-wingers, I think you are mistaken.

This is a bit like our conversation on "classical liberals". You're operating on broad categories that possibly include me, but pick extreme off-the-wall examples that are a poor fit to the category.

I agree with this sentiment. I broadly align with the right wing but don't like the turn this place has taken since the move off of Reddit. I think we would all be much better served by actually looking more for heat than light, and having less right wing applause lights.

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