site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32429 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.

the local Minnesota Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) chapter condemning the professor as Islamophobic

Yes, standard accusations of Islamophobia. But also:

“If you want to know how people respond, you've seen what happened in the horrible tragedies of Charlie Hebdo..."

-Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

I didn't know about these comments before and they seem even worse in context:

When Hussein opened the floor for questions, the first was from Mark Berkson, chair of Hamline’s religion department. “I’ve taught Islam at Hamline for 22 years,” Berkson began. “This event was organized in response to something very particular. This wasn’t hate speech or vandalism or violence.” Berkson’s core objection was that, contrary to Hussein’s claims, there has been historically, and is even now, substantial diversity of opinion within Islam on the extent to which images of the Prophet are forbidden. “What does one do when the Muslim community itself is divided on an issue? There are many Muslim scholars, and experts, and art historians, who do not believe that this was Islamophobic.”

At this point in the video recording of the conversation, a woman’s silhouette moves into view and approaches Berkson; she apparently intends to stop him from talking. “It’s OK,” Hussein said, and Berkson went on: “In this particular case we have a work of art considered a treasure and masterpiece by scholars, painted by Muslim artists for a Muslim king that honors the Prophet —”

Hussein interrupted him. “You can stop.” Then: “Here’s what I’m going to tell you. If you share pedophilia in this school as an art, I’m happy for you to show the picture of our Prophet. But if you don’t do that, then you’re not going to disrespect our Prophet.” Hussein then launched into a long, rather confusing comparison involving Hitler. After all, he said, some people — some white Minnesotans, even — think Hitler was good. But that wouldn’t justify teaching a pro-Hitler class! “If you ask me right now, I’ll come back with a 26-page paper telling you why Hitler was good. That does not make it right.”

The Chronicle seems to be the only place that printed this quote, and I'm really curious why the audio/video was not released anywhere else.

Based Chris Rufo demonstrates how to deny the heckler’s veto.

I have to give credit where credit is due and say that's an admirable display of conduct from Rufo. I wish he'd spend less time with Chinese cardiologist insinuations and more on what the video showed.

Great link, in terms of actually digging down instead of flinging talking points. My take is that Rufo is comfortable fighting fire with fire, getting dirty with the hogs, etc. He can also shower off and don a 3 piece suit for the Harvard set.

My impression of Rufo is in line with my impression of De Santis: these guys are getting soft-balled. It's almost staged. Not to say they aren't sincere or competent – they are – but it's not some political brilliance to flip the board (of trustees), it's making use of available resources in an allowed way. This woman in the video is blatantly trying to overstep her authority with a two-bit safetyist sermon based on a low-effort anonymous threat, she's a predictable villain of the week, and she's alone – physically at least. This also suggests that conservatives who got heckled out of colleges and demonized within the prestigious discourse were drooling morons who couldn't navigate their own spaces. I guess this looks plausible today to some (e.g. Hanania), but it hadn't been the case during the slow purge. So how come they lost so hard?

The hard stuff is not politely standing your ground before an old crone who wags her wrinkly finger and tries to make you feel like a naughty child – though I suppose for decent prosocial people (as well as for simple folk with poorer impulse control than what a snake in a suit like Rufo can display) that may be hard too. It's withstanding pressure in tens if not hundreds of dimensions; from direct physical intimidation and obstruction, to your own family beginning to feel shame for you, to business boycotts, to vilification coordinated by large orgs who can rope in public icons, to actual legitimate decrees, to plain apathy of your network which is sane, myopically, and so doesn't feel like fighting such an uphill battle is worth the effort.

Manipulation of procedural outcomes relies not so much on high-IQ plays as on slow march through the institutions and seizing control over many nodes at once, to the point it's redundant. When you know that there's at least one friendly Board above any Board that your enemy may coordinate to seize, it's hard to lose. Unless you decide to throw the match, or implode from within.

This also suggests that conservatives who got heckled out of colleges and demonized within the prestigious discourse were drooling morons who couldn't navigate their own spaces. I guess this looks plausible today to some (e.g. Hanania), but it hadn't been the case during the slow purge. So how come they lost so hard?

Conservatism in America has never been about fighting hard . Conservatism is inherently defensive (negative vs. positive rights). This puts the right at a disadvantage against the left. For the right to succeed, it needs the status quo to change. It cannot just force change.

these guys are getting soft-balled. It's almost staged.

I understand your point, but disagree. I felt kinda bad posting Rufo dunking on the Karen president, particularly in response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre, but I also feel like we've seen tons of well-meaning administrators cave to the forces of safetyism and pearl-clutching in order to prevent certain views from being aired.

But there's kind of a structural bind here: if Karen wants to come back from this setback, she needs to go, ultimately, full Charlie Hebdo. There are of course many steps in that direction. But Karen now needs to pray for violence in order to prevent speech. Yet -- where security and safety are truly concerns, one may host debates in highly secure environments.

I also feel like we've seen tons of well-meaning administrators cave to the forces of safetyism and pearl-clutching in order to prevent certain views from being aired.

That's just another layer of the onion. The same "well-meaning administrators" would not respond the same way to similar threats against talks pushing opposite views. Such a threat would not be used stop the threatened talk, and would instead be used as an excuse to crack down on opponents of those views. This is what makes the tactics asymmetric; it's why right-wingers can't just send in anonymous threats (through the obligatory nine proxies) to put a stop to leftist talks.

So how come they lost so hard?

Perhaps like the mainstream media: at the start of Fox News it did lean left, though not as heavily. Fox drew a lot of right-wing people which made the media be perceived as even more left-leaning, combined with the polemics against this which also drove conservatives away into their own networks because the rest of the media was seen as a leftist province. Polarization begets polarization.

There is a difference of course: conservatives didn't run away from school altogether. So why the rout? Well, I suspect that's where civil rights law and DEI initiatives come in. Cons could still go to schools, and still go to less "woke" subjects but the university's social policy had to be subject to Title IX and other "woke" laws (shaped by ideology in spaces dominated by the left and enforced by administrators who may have been woker than the median professor) and, especially, how the government du jour interprets them.

If anything, what makes Rufo and DeSantis effective is that they understand that part of the game is about the law and changing institutions, not just dispositional concerns that other, more left-wing critics of cancel culture raise which boil down to "just stand your ground if the cancellers come for your employees" or "maybe only cancel really bad people guys!"

Helps when you're a member of the college's board of trustees.

Chris Rufo is so clearly the rising star of the new-republican party. The guy is smart, knows how to hit back against his main ideological opponent in the woke & seems to be raking in the cultural wins one-after-another. He has an elite educational background while also living around west-coast liberals. Yet somehow, De Santis and republicans seem to trust him.

I don't necessarily agree with him, but watching him navigate these seemingly unwinnable fights and come out on top is fascinating.

I see him get called out for straw-manning & being a bad-faith actor, but his videos pretty much come across as a 'fight fire with fire' approach. The worst things people have to say about him, also apply to his ideological opponents.

Like him or not, he is interesting to follow.

I think his conduct in the video above is commendable but I still think he's too often a bad faith actor. One example happened after the spat between DeSantis and Disney, where Rufo jumped in to mention that a Disney employee has been arrested for child sex crimes at least once a year for the past decade, omitting that Disney employees 190,000 people and how that would compare to an average baseline.

I see him get called out for straw-manning & being a bad-faith actor

I don't think he's bad-faith, inasmuch as he's pretending to be something that he's not. He's openly a right-wing culture warrior, and he details exactly how he fights without reservation. When he was placed on the New College board by DeSantis, the NYT accused him of staging a "hostile takeover" of the school in order to roll back the "long march through the institutions" that had made such colleges left-wing bastions. His response was, essentially, "yes, that's exactly what I'm doing".

He's also strangely scrupulous for a culture warrior, refusing to engage in "groomer" rhetoric like his compatriots. Definitely a guy to watch for, as most people in his space develop acute Twitter Brain and self-immolate before they can have any sort of meaningful political impact.

He's openly a right-wing culture warrior

Yup, he's a clear political operator.

It's a strange category error when leftists cite him saying "Do X to win" (e.g. make sure parents associate woke ideology with CRT or vice versa) as if it's him using a logical fallacy in a formal debate or in a philosophical paper. As if political maneuvering hasn't always included this (see the conveniently named "Don't Say Gay" bill which deliberately picks the less controversial LGBT minority as the target and ignores anything else)

It might also reveal something about the mindset of political operatives on the Left: they seem to believe that they win via socratic dialogue and good faith and that similar tactics to Rufo's (or even ones much bigger in scope) aren't being used.

Suffice it to say, I'm sure their enemies are equally skeptical of them.

Committed leftists tend to use a reasoning process which finds the at very least plausible, logical extrapolation of a particular position and see if it violates any well established sacred values. They then declare it illegitimate if it does, and by extension declare illegitimate anyone who might raise it. Ex: If X is claiming blacks are unequal, and he's not claiming that this is the result of white actions --> there must be something fundamentally flawed with black people. People claiming there are fundamental flaws with black people, and by extension that race is a useful proxy for eliminating flawed traits must be racists. There are obvious discrepancies in outcomes. QED: Conservatives are racists. QED: Conservatives are evil and not legitimate critics, they are racists.

It's the Emperor's new clothes, if no one was allowed to mention the nakedness of the emperor and some people had convinced themselves they weren't alluding to it even when they obviously were. Apologies for the spelling errors, I'm drunk.

I saw a lot of this sort of thinking on those EA forums that were linked over the Bostrom controversy. It's a fundamental problem with collectivist, authoritarian thinking. They can't just accept a descriptivist fact, it must be twisted into a prescriptivist dictate.

I mean if I tell you, hey that pitbull is charging for your child - there's a gun in the car, I technically haven't made any policy prescriptions. Nonetheless, it's pretty obvious what basic widely shared moral intuitions demand that you do with those facts. This is why I bring up the emperor. In the real world, your emperor being deluded enough to fall for invisible clothes implies that him and/or his advisors need to be removed from power and there's no way around it.

The general atmosphere of seemingly paranoid fear among the blue tribe is totally legitimate. In this country, the kulaks never lost their guns and blue tribe subjected millions of their children and it's own (Columbia students ride the subway too) to disgusting conditions... for nothing. What is mind-boggling for me, having recently realized what this is in fact what we were doing and defected to the other side is finding that the dog-whistles we were worried about weren't dog whistles at all, and that there are only marginal elements in the red world interested in doing anything about it's subjection.

I see him get called out for straw-manning & being a bad-faith actor, but his videos pretty much come across as a 'fight fire with fire' approach. The worst things people have to say about him, also apply to his ideological opponents.

It's funny that I see a lot of criticism of him from other people who also criticize wokeness in the same way.

I think significant portion of those critics* are those who broadly agree with his ideological opponents except on a few issues or tactics and therefore are obliged to hate Rufo for working with The Enemy, even though that's basically the only way to achieve anything when one of two political parties is totally opposed to your positions.

Truth be told, there's a class of homeless leftists who I think are a) jealous that he can have an impact, b) have been browbeaten into ineffectiveness by the constant leftist smear that they're further right than they are and, unlike Rufo, aren't willing to bite the bullet and c) scared that by doing so he's empowering the right wing to achieve their other ends (e.g. weakening public schooling)

Ultimately, they're politically irrelevant, clinging on to some self-serving, slave morality definition of "good faith" in spite of its inertness on a policy level. I can see why they're resentful; they can't work with Republicans cause that's a no-no in today's polarized world, but their own side has cast them out as witches. Meanwhile Rufo is using all of their critiques** and winning.

* We know why his direct opponents don't care for consistency.

** I remember Katie Herzog being furious when Rufo (rightly) responded to a trans-skeptical feminist's accusation that he was appropriating their arguments without giving respect by pointing out that the feminists had either totally failed to hold the line on gender identity issues or had actively abetted the problematization of their own hard-fought privileges and so didn't deserve much respect anyway. Having the argument means nothing if you constantly lose or fold; Rufo was going to have to come up with the central piece -winning- on his own anyway, so it's a bit much to demand laurels.

You've hit the nail on the head. As much as I like B&R, Katie's comments on Rufo sounded more like jealously than disagreement. Katie has suffered some of the worst ostracization, while also having the least disagreements with her bullies on most issues. The lady was practically chased out of Seattle. It is natural for her to feel like she deserves the most credit, since she was the one who suffered most. Of course, your willingness to suffer quietly & ineffectively has nothing to do with who gets rewarded once the tide starts turning back again.

It's funny, because Katie's own co-host has written about a similar type of resentfulness from the monetary perspective. The good non-woke-liberal journalists rejected Substack to 'stick by the ingroup's rules', but were instead rewarded with paltry wages & editorial suppression at big media. On the other hand, the sub-stackers 'played dirty' by not following institutional rules, made $$$.

From the POV of on-the-ground impact, Chris Rufo is doing to the 'substack liberals', what the substack liberals did to institutional journalists from a monetary POV.

feminists had either totally failed to hold the line on gender identity issues or had actively abetted the problematization of their own hard-fought privileges and so didn't deserve much respect anyway. Having the argument means nothing if you constantly lose or fold

Harsh, impolite & more accusatory than was necessary....but fair.

Here is the reference to this

Thanks but - side question- does Nitter just not ever work for anyone else?

nitter DOT net is based in Germany, and German instances seem to work worse for me. I use nitter DOT 1d4 DOT us which works pretty well. There is a list of public instances at https://xnaas.github.io/nitter-instances/

Interesting - your comment reads "twitter dot com is based in Germany," but I assume you wrote "nitter dot net is based in Germany,". A side-effect of the Nitter option in user settings?

Looks like it. I didn't realize bare domain names got automatically converted to links.

Let's test something:

twitter.com twitter.com twitter DOT com

twitter.com twitter.com nitter DOT net

Yes! Although it seems to vary from day to day for me. One day it will load fine or after a couple of refreshes, the next day it just won't load no matter how many times I refresh. Now if it doesn't load after the third refresh I just cave and replace twitter.com with twitter.c0m like the quitter I am. I know I could change my account settings back to not redirecting, but nitter really is so much better when it works.

Edit lol I am dumb

I self-host my own instance, hadn't had issues since.

Twitter's API has been throttling lately. Just keep hitting refresh periodically.

Tends to work for me, but if it doesn't work for you there is a profile setting to not update the links to nitter.

Ah, that there is. Thank you.

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