site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35577 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.

As someone who grew up in a quietly conservative area, I was still completely surrounded by politics. Like you said, political jeers somehow found its way into everything - even when we had a traditional thanksgiving dinner, there would inevitably be a few comments about how liberals viewed thanksgiving. I'm now on the left and find the same thing - people and politics are often inseparable. I think this is especially prevalent in America and I don't know if it's possible to avoid it entirely.

Here's how I make it work. I realized that I don't really care what people believe - I care about why people believe it. I'm firmly on the left but have always had an aversion to the hyper-woke crowd as many of us do. It was hard for me because I often partially supported their ideas but could just never fully get behind them or anything that they say. This was confusing because I knew plenty of lefties in my own life that expressed similar views (or sometime more extreme) yet I would agree or be ok with them. Finally, I realized that my primary aversion to the hyper-woke was their poor arguments and dogmatic attitude. This aversion also explains my dislike of other political groups that express similar characteristics.

Once I figured this out, I started to be more selective - If my parents (smart people but misinformed politically) make anti-left comments at thanksgiving dinner, I just ignore it because I know that they don't have great support for their beliefs anyway. Same goes for some of my more woke friends. I only engage, care, or listen to people who's beliefs I consider to be well supported. My friends are much more politically diverse now because even if I don't agree with their conclusions I can at least respect how they got there. Just my two cents.

Finally, I realized that my primary aversion to the hyper-woke was their poor arguments and dogmatic attitude. This aversion also explains my dislike of other political groups that express similar characteristics.

The realization that even if one side is right and one side is wrong, no side has a monopoly on bad takes or bad arguments.

I rarely see people on the right introspect about the right this way though, which I find fascinating. Maybe the lefty identity is so tied up with being intellectual or being correct that we can't abide a useful idiot, even if it means arguing against our own team, the old left wing circular firing squad...

I rarely see people on the right introspect about the right this way though, which I find fascinating. Maybe the lefty identity is so tied up with being intellectual or being correct that we can't abide a useful idiot, even if it means arguing against our own team, the old left wing circular firing squad...

I don't know, even if there's a lot of infighting on the left due to lots of factions, there's a distinct up-your-own-ass-ness that I see from leftists about any individual's own positions, as well as the correctness of leftism as a whole (even if they believe other people on the left have it subtly wrong) that would not make me think that leftists are introspective in the correct way. For example, I'm totally sick of the leftist meme of "reality has a liberal bias". No one on the left that I see really seems to stop and think, "Hey, what if I'm wrong? Or what if my movement is wrong?", even if they love throwing rival factions other under the bus.

I rarely see people on the right introspect about the right this way though, which I find fascinating. Maybe the lefty identity is so tied up with being intellectual or being correct that we can't abide a useful idiot, even if it means arguing against our own team, the old left wing circular firing squad...

This is definitely a low-key factor, even when it's not "own side". The iron worker with a shitty conservative take doesn't have the sheer pretentiousness that I see in the adjunct or media flunkey with a shitty progressive take. I think the more intellectually-inclined people on the right ignore the idiots on their side in the same way that progressive leaders politely ignore e.g. hoteps. I think there are still meaningful asymmetries that give rise to this visceral reaction to the woke and large parts of general progressivism, but I'm not sure I can describe it in a way that sheds more light than heat.

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