site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   35825 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said

Ouch, this dreary poem again, the poem everyone loves and no one knows what is it about.

This poem was written in 1920, and it was not meant as timeless wisdom for all times and places, but as a commentary about current events.

What were the current events?

If you lived in UK 102 years ago, there were three major issues that split the country, issues that everyone politically aware had to take a stand on.

1/ Military. Should UK negotiate with other great powers to limit armaments, or should it strive to be greatest power ever at any cost?

This is what "the Cambrian measures" of the poem mean.

If you thought that what the country needs right now are more battleships, the bigger and shinier the better, congrats, you are Kipling.

2/ Social question, especially eight hour working day.

"the Carboniferous Epoch"

If you thought that workers and miners already live high on the hog and do not need any handouts, congrats, you are Kipling.

3/ Votes for women.

"the Feminian Sandstones"

If you thought that the country has already too much democracy, congrats, you are Kipling.

Now, what happened? Did the country followed Kipling's advice?

No, it did not.

The British establishment negotiated Washington Naval Treaty, let women over age 30 vote and even gave some concessions to the working class.

Were it good choices? If instead they engaged in massive military buildup and crushed the uppity mob with iron fist, would it make Britain great again, greater than ever?

Eh, for the same reason death of the artist seems like a good idea I think we can separate works from their time and let people of new generations take from them what they will. It's a catchier version of Chesterton fences for folk wisdom and I think accurate captures the spirit behind a kind of fundamental pillar of conservatism's distrust of too good to be true if socially popular claims. When the modern economists tell you that you can print as much money as you need and cite piles and piles of self referential research to prove the fact it's good to have some more ammunition to protect yourself.

MMT is a fringe theory. If you want to argue against it, you can just point to the consensus among mainstream economists. A highly specific modern interpretation of a hundred-year-old poem is not a good argument against anything.

It certainly didn't work out for them when they didn't do that.

Yes, what the Brits were doing was not working for them.

For example, when they taught the "wogs" English and invited them to study at their universities, and then strongly reminded them that they are wogs and never will be anything else.

This would not happen in ancient Rome or other serious empires of the past.

Want to be world spanning empire that lasts for centuries and is remembered for millenia? Behave like one.

Were it good choices? If instead they engaged in massive military buildup and crushed the uppity mob with iron fist, would it make Britain great again, greater than ever?

Who knows? Do you? I don't. Alternative history provides an endless canvas to imagination. But I'm fairly sure that, were this program to succeed (despite structural reasons to the contrary), we wouldn't have heard anything about «appeasement», nor about Operation Sea Lion or The Blitz, and plausibly the Third Reich itself would have been relegated to footnotes of history. And the Empire might have lasted a great deal longer, and perhaps @2rafa wouldn't have any sordid tales of post-War collapse and sudden impoverishment of London elites to tell, and – just maybe! – @KulakRevolt would be fuming about the global kraken of perfidious Albion exploiting American vulnerability under the false guise of allyship, rather than the other way around.

just maybe! – @KulakRevolt would be fuming about the global kraken of perfidious Albion exploiting American vulnerability under the false guise of allyship, rather than the other way around.

The only constant in every timeline is a man named kulakrevolt fuming about something.

The human and materiel losses incurred might always have let America sweep ahead—but I suppose that’s what you meant by “structural reasons.”

If you thought that the country has already too much democracy, congrats, you are Kipling.

I feel seen, but that is a post for another day...

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