site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32334 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What is wypipoing? Wypipoing is calling oneself a “patriot” while waving a confederate flag. Wypipoing is whining about widespread voter fraud while rubber-stamping gerrymandering, voter suppression and felon disenfranchisement. Wypipoing is screaming about freedom of speech while outlawing critical race theory. And if you find the term “wypipoing” offensive…

Are you sure that the article is about the white race and not about Republicans / online chuds?

I can tell it's about the white race by the way they keep talking about white people. This isn't that hard.

Your understanding of American politics will expand dramatically when you grok that the implied meaning of "white" and "black" respectively is Republican and Democrat.

It's political partisanship disguised as racism. Why racism is so attractive to self-declared "anti-racists" is fairly straightforward Freudian analysis. The flip side of conservative denigration of black social norms is likewise mediated by the fact that 95%+ of black votes go to Democrats.

I'm not sure if that 95% statistic evens what you imply it means in a world where Larry Elder is considered "white" and Shaun King "black".

Of course. Who could forget Larry Elders being denounced as the "black face of white supremacy". He gets comically lumped in with white people by running as a Republican.

It's not just him either, guys like Tim Scott, and Voddie Baucham get the same treatment. Then there was the whole bit where Biden, the WaPo, and a bunch of other news outlets were claiming that Ketanji Brown Jackson was the "first black Supreme court Justice", only to quietly correct their stories to read "first black woman on the Supreme Court" after the fact.

I think you're agreeing with me?

I'm agreeing that "white" and "black" as used in a lot of culture war contexts basically means "Republican" and "Democrat", but I'm also suggesting that the oft repeated claim that ">90% of African Americans vote democrat" is likely confounded to hell for exactly that reason.

Well, you ain't really black if you don't vote for Biden.......

But, while this is probably a small factor, I don't think it's masking any serious difference in the data. Five percent of all black people in the US is still almost two million people. Plenty of room in there for a lot of prominent black conservatives without changing the overall voting picture.

Even if it is ostensibly only about a certain subset of white people, calling it wypipoing clearly insinuates it's behaviour that is typical of white people and therefore insults them as a whole. It's equivalent to having an article titled Top 10 Nigga Moments of 2022 and just having it be a list of times notable black people impulsively attacked people, implying it to be typical black behaviour.

I doubt that you hold radically politically correct views. The claim to double standards also doesn't work perfectly, as the left sees no contradiction here, because they consider whites to be a large and powerful group that such generalizations do not pose a threat to anyone.

I doubt that you hold radically politically correct views.

I'm not sure how this is relevant.

The claim to double standards also doesn't work perfectly, as the left sees no contradiction here, because they consider whites to be a large enough and powerful enough group that such generalizations do not pose a threat to anyone.

Yes, I understand their justification for the double standard, I just don't agree with it. Besides that I'm not sure how it contradicts what I said: even if negative generalisations of white people don't have the same consequences as negative generalisations of black people, it still is a negative generalisation of white people and not merely criticism of Republicans/chuds/etc.

What they mean is that whites are secure enough to know that such generalizations are only directed against political opponents, not against their race.

Simply put, there is no negative generalization when the group is not outnumbered or threatened.

In any case, it is important here what the author of the article meant, and not how you can interpret his words if you wish.

I'm not sure how this is relevant.

I confused your comment with MelodicBerries deleted comment.

What they mean is that whites are secure enough to know that such generalizations are only directed against political opponents, not against their race.

By their own definition that seems to be the same thing.

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