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.

Doesn't this theory suggest welcoming with open and encouraging arms atheist jews who integrate and marry into normal western society? Yet almost all antisemites suggest that left-wing or revolutionary ordeconstructing jews, most of which aren't that ethically jewish and marry into broader society, are a key driver of societal decay or w/e.

It's members pursue their ideological goals

If jews had a pattern of malevolent "ideological" (or non-ideological) goals (in a way gentiles didn't), and had disproportionate power due to their IQ, that'd be enough to prove antisemitism without the 'and it works better because of lack of care for non-co-ethnics' part. Conversely - if they don't, caring less about gentiles doesn't matter that much. Most ideological goals today claim they benefit the general population / people of all religions, including most of those held by jews - so "loving the gentiles" wouldn't restrict the ideological zeal of powerful jews - if you're a communist, "caring more about people of all races" in a simple sense won't stop you from being communist even given that as a matter of fact communist harms people of all races, because the communist doesn't believe that.

Doesn't this theory suggest welcoming with open and encouraging arms atheist jews who integrate and marry into normal western society? Yet almost all antisemites suggest that left-wing or revolutionary ordeconstructing jews, most of which aren't that ethically jewish and marry into broader society, are a key driver of societal decay or w/e.

The problem with 'atheists' is that they actually follow a different religion. From example egalitarianism, or 'woke' religion.With Western Jews I would say that their primary religion is the holocaust / antisemitism.

Bad things happen to everyone every day, but every time somebody steps on a Jew's toe, it seems to make international news.

There seems to be a lack of self-reflection as well. Show me a person descended from Jews who says :'you know what, Kanye and Kyrie Irving have a point, these Jews sure have a lot of wealth, maybe they ought to act nicer', who is not trashing Jesus Christ, who is not lambasting white people or anyone else for freedom of association, and I'll be pretty welcoming to them.

Stephen Miller is pretty okay I guess, from what I heard about him.

Egalitarianism is not wokism, and neither are inherently religious.

I’m sure some “atheists” are really filling a God-shaped hole with social justice rhetoric. I’m not one of them, and I doubt that most are. Some of us just don’t have that need.

It's not a very common occurrence but here's an example from h3h3

His job is, in part, to make edgy-but-still-socially-acceptable jokes though. Religion is an acceptable target for mocking among people who lean left. compare to "racist comments against asians". This is like using nick mullen to prove all whites are racist.

He has a job because he's not cancelled. I think he helped cancel Sam Hyde's tv show.

It's acceptable to hate on Jesus but hating on Mohammed will get you killed while hating anything that has to do with Jews will get you cancelled.

All I'm saying is that part of my personal minimum for acceptable non-Christians is that they show some respect to the faith.

Then one of the other thing, if you're wealthy and powerful, and this is not specifically a Christian thing, is to not lord it over other people. Noblesse oblige they call it?

Antisemitism is hardly ever 'punching down' as the progressives put it.

H3H3 may not be "cancelled," but he's lost quite a lot of his respectability among his creative peers, and that can be effectively the same thing.

Sorry yes the twitter acct was deleted today and I found an alternate youtube commenting on it but somehow did not copy it. Fixed.

Agree on this. Progressive narratives about Christianity can be annoying and offensive, but it doesn’t seem like they’re disproportionately Jewish. And religious Jews have narratives about Christianity which are offensive to Christian(and yes, the double standard where that’s all well and good but Christians need to tailor their narrative around not offending the Jews needs to be called out), but it doesn’t seem like it influences anything that isn’t directly connected to religious Judaism.

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