site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32403 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Funny, I was just reading this article that I think conclusively challenged this stuff

For instance, the Times piece claims that incels accounted for half of the total referrals to Prevent in the year ending March 2021. There is no evidence to back up this claim.

According to public data from the Home Office, Prevent received 2,522 referrals about individuals with a ‘mixed, unstable or unclear ideology’ (MMU) – a catch-all category for anything other than Islamist or right-wing extremism, which accounted for the remaining 22 per cent and 25 per cent of referrals respectively. It also includes individuals with no ideological orientation who are nonetheless deemed ‘at risk’ of committing an attack, such as a school massacre. A more detailed breakdown of the MMU category is not yet publicly available, but the suggestion that it is mostly made up of incels is unfounded and highly unlikely.

I think there are a couple of things going on:

#1 is just a general post-ISIS butchering of "radicalization" as a concept because it serves as a way of elevating what is a political disagreement to something that demands the tools of state and the corporate moderators- the Hillary playbook: I didn't lose because I was unpopular, it was This Thing That Requires We Censor People [That article is from a man that actually studies incels btw]

The problem is that this sensibility becomes self-sustaining and actually a "grift" for some people:

So prevalent is the radicalization charge that you would think people are incentivized to hurl it around. You wouldn't be wrong: There is a whole industry that is parasitic on naming and classifying people as radicalized. It includes the mass media, which engorges itself on stories of radicalization. It includes academics like me who do research on radicalization. And it includes a whole edifice of counter-extremist entrepreneurs whose business model is to hype up existing threats and find news ones. Nobody in this game, if we're honest, has an interest in seeing radicalization go away. It's bad for business. We need radicalized people, and if we can't find them, we'll invent them.

Interestingly, there's a point that might especially apply to incels:

If everyone is radicalized, it becomes impossible to distinguish between those who are merely odious and hateful from those who, if they had the chance, skills and support, would like to slaughter you and me in our thousands.

And we urgently need to know the difference between the two.

In America, right now, the chief obstacle to this happening is the apocalyptic disgust that has overtaken and unhinged progressives and even some Republicans. It is not that the far-right isn't a threat to civil order and security in the US. It undoubtedly is. Rather, it is that the visceral revulsion that many progressives feel toward the far-right has led them to drastically over-inflate the actual threat it poses by suggesting it now eclipses the threat from global jihadists.

And who is more disgusting than the bitter,sexless loser? They have no constituency; feminism doesn't engender sympathy for "privileged" men already and men themselves as a class aren't particularly sympathetic to those considered "bitches". Hell, some make a point to be less so (perhaps because they can handle any resulting aggression).

#2 is Female Sensitivity

Women may just be more sensitive to guys that give the "ick" or appear dangerously entitled.

To me, overly online men aren't really threatening. But then...I've always been bigger and I've never had a reason to fear in the presence of other men. I'm not worried some of them will be opportunistic.

#3 is Feminist Ideology & Rape Culture.

I remember, in the early days of the culture war for me, that feminists would insist "yes, all men" (the red pill had "all women are like that", another point for horseshoe theory)

Now, this has problems in that it ignores that a disproportionate amount of sexual offenses are committed by so-called "Dark Triad" men. After all; the best predator is the one who can at least appear not-dangerous for a while.

If you take this logic seriously - that all men are potential rapists - who's more suspect than the incels? They're creepy, some are outright saying it and, if you buy into this rape culture narrative, this is something more than just losers online babbling. You'd think they'd be the people assaulting you (and some are).

EDIT: The other risk that incels pose is that sympathy for them will lead to pressure on women to lower their standards (or "enforced monogamy" - which caused a riot when Peterson said it). Obviously, no one wants to have their options constrained, but I think this is an oversold problem in practice.

#4 is Feminism needs a villain.

Despite - or because - they've dismantled most legal barriers, basically gained a hand in guiding the mores of corporate America via their 70% hold on the HR departments, having laws designed to protect them....feminists need an enemy or some sort of harm to justify even more and more demands. Incels shooting people - despite being rare - served that role and it takes a while for progressives to let go of martyrs (that gay nightclub shooting and Matthew Shepherd are probably still seen as a targets of homophobia by most, despite debunkings)

Incels, because they are male, fill this niche for feminists and progressives - which is why they ignore (despite all evidence) the fact that that incels aren't a white male monolith and, if anything, groups like Indians are likely to be overrepresented: to remove even the potential for the usual "woke" argument for sympathy.

#1 is just a general post-ISIS butchering of "radicalization" as a concept because it serves as a way of elevating what is a political disagreement to something that demands the tools of state and the corporate moderators-

15 years ago, when I asked my students to name a terrorist, the names that came up were (...) Anders Breivik (...)

Did those students make it to graduation without being whisked away by men in unmarked black helicopters?

Trans/Homophobia has held the analogous position for the LGBT movement. You think a bunch of prominent murdered trans or gays wouldn't get used in activism to make the issue more emotionally salient?

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