site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31624 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Jesus wept.

But because they are, you do.

Not necessarily. The parable of the prodigal son hinges on the contrition of the son, not on his foolishness.

Ethnies [?] are partly socially constructed, but largely racially constrained families, and they contained a weakened form of the same instinct of moral obligation towards the members of the ethny.

Do they? How weakened? I can find plenty of examples of intra-racial snitching, backstabbing, shifting alliances, or outside allegiance. You are glossing over the step where I am supposed to find the Jews uniquely scary on this front. This is the usual demand for a "belief in a unique Jewish malevolence."

Elites...don't normally arrive at the belief that these should be mercilessly crushed,

Oh, is that so?

or that public policy should show no concern whatsoever for their wellbeing

But of course. I notice you also don't bother to demonstrate that the Jews do both those things.

a guaranteed factory of new revolutionary ideas

Ah yes, the famed revolutionary zeal of the Ashkenazim. Except when it's time to talk about Israel, and suddenly the modal Jew is a Hasidic fundamentalist and a hidebound reactionary.

no instinctive limiting concern for the vast majority of people

It may beggar belief, but some humans are capable of extending empathy--even charity!--beyond their racial group. Again, you assert that Jews must be unusually malevolent, yet do not provide your evidence.

[rambling about how Jews can't integrate]

Uh huh. The Jews that you Notice™ in our American elite sure look like they're engaging with American culture. "The enemy must be both strong and weak," I suppose.

You conclude by, yet again, forgoing evidence in favor of assertions that your enmity is "natural." Congratulations: now that you've solved the Jewish problem, you can go back to living in the woods and getting in tribal fights with bands of monkeys. Civilization is about being better than this, about breaking the defect-defect equilibrium and unlocking a world of unnatural ideas like "comparative advantage" and "law."

If anti-Semitism were rocket science, it would be far more coherent.

''' It may beggar belief, but some humans are capable of extending empathy--even charity!--beyond their racial group. '''

People are also capable of extending charity outside of their family, yet the norm for most people, most of the time, is to extend far more empathy and charity to family members than to outsiders. In fact, most people would seriously distrust a person who told them, hey I care about family members and non-family members equally.

''' Again, you assert that Jews must be unusually malevolent, yet do not provide your evidence. '''

Once again, I think that every elite group is tempted to feel contempt for those it rules, and that the vast majority of it's capacity for benevolence towards those ruled stems from ethnic identification with those ruled.

You are, of course, correct. Charity may well be applied inversely proportional to distance. I think I've seen it described as a model of concentric circles, in which the closest (and smallest) circles receive the most attention.

But that does not mean the outer circles are empty. You could have someone who cares strictly less about those outside his immediate family, yet still be able to treat with them, even respect them. I say "could," but as you observe, this is the normal state of affairs.

the vast majority of it's [sic] capacity for benevolence towards those ruled stems from ethnic identification with those ruled.

Why do you believe this?

But that does not mean the outer circles are empty. You could have someone who cares strictly less about those outside his immediate family, yet still be able to treat with them, even respect them. I say "could," but as you observe, this is the normal state of affairs.

Not sure about the original thesis, but this counterpoint ignores the ingroup/outgroup/fargroup dynamic. It is common for some of those concentric circles to include functional complete apathy and even outright hostility. The "Early Life" trope does exist, and politics is the mindkiller.

True. But then, assuming there are only three circles (family, “ethnie,” and “no instinctive limiting concern”) isn’t compatible with it, either. I think OP needs to do more work to explain why everyone is in an “outgroup” circle and not one of the more favorable ones.

What’s “Early Life?” Kind of hard to google.

What’s “Early Life?” Kind of hard to google.

When you see some paleface writer, journalist, researcher, etc, condemning western civilization and white people, check the "Early Life" section of their wikipedia article. Purportedly, it will let slip their otherwise unremarked Jewish heritage. Obviously subject to massive selection effects and convenient memory loss when it doesn't hold, but it does seem to bear out more often than I would have expected.

Ahh, I see.

It’s the section I checked, yesterday, when trying to see if recent newsworthy figures were suitable examples for my post...so yeah, the trope is real.

"Early Life" is the section in a person's page on Wikipedia that usually mentions if they were born in a Jewish family.

Why do you believe this?

Because as soon as our elites oficially abandoned racial identification as a legitimite value they immediately transferred their allegiance to racial minorities, advancing their alleged interests with psychopathic disregard for the safety or security of their primary citizens. Nixon for example, dramatically expanded affirmative action, despite being at least tentatively convinced that Hernstein was correct and racial intelligence gaps were genetic - https://youtube.com/watch?v=PwXOEFK6Swo.

Your evidence for a grand historical trend...is just Nixon?

I don’t find that very compelling. How does removing segregation cause Nixon to go mask-off? Why should any particular citizen be treated as “primary?”

Wouldn’t this predict that Jewish elite should favor gentile subjects over Jewish ones?

The elites of every major western European nation have accepted massive populations of migrants despite these being entirely a financial negative, several times more violence and criminality prone than the native populations, and on top of that open hatred for western society and social attitudes that were in every way the polar opposite of everything enlightenment or post-enlightenment. And they've done this wave after wave, with full awareness of the consequences. They did this despite massive public disaproval, with little to no opposition by conservatives.

In America, A black man born to a family in the top one percent is as likely to be incarcerated as a white man born to a family making 36K. The average black teenager in a family making 200K will get the same SAT score as a white child from a family making 20K. Our elites (including the conservative ones) respond by discriminating against whites, decreasing penalties for criminality and burying the race of anti-white criminals while boosting every single case of a white hurting a black.

The nature of America's new creed is so obvious, that even white red tribe normies whose family members are murdered by blacks understand that they are expected to express their forgiveness for the killers to the national press.

AS FOR JEWISH ELITES:

  • ''' Wouldn’t this predict that Jewish elite should favor gentile subjects over Jewish ones? '''

In many cases they do. But the important divide isn't Jewish vs gentile, but Western vs foreign. You could make hundreds of millions of people temporarily better off by bringing them to European countries. But they inevitably make European society worse. If a non-ethnocentric Jew does not gain a special willingness to privilege the interests Europeans over non-europeans, being a general lover of gentiles makes them a worse enemy than an ethnocentric Jew, because then undermine your society even when their ethnic interests are aligned with it (keeping muslims out).

Who are primary citizens in this context?

Nixon is the worst possible example for this argument. It was perfectly possible in 1969 to believe both that 1) black people are genetically inferior; and 2) nevertheless, most of gap in economic success was the result of other factors. It is even possible that both of those things are true.

The link is to one of the Nixon tapes, in which he discusses race with Moynihan.

In fact, most people would seriously distrust a person who told them, hey I care about family members and non-family members equally.

This seems like a strange assertion. If I told a stranger "I care about you as if you were family" I think most people would think it was a compliment!

Yes, because you're elevating that person to a special importance. Literally, the complimentary nature of the line is entirely dependent on the unique care level of family. If I told someone "I care about you as much as a random North Korean peasant", they would think of that as an insult.

Ah, but what people hear given that phrasing is “I care as little for my family as I do for any stranger on the street.” It sends up sociopathic flags.

To an actual stranger? Like, if you told that to someone on the day you met them? Nope, I'd start looking around for exits the moment I heard something like that.

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