site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32961 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 13, 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.

You're off topic. You were supposed to defend "human resource managers" by showing how they build corporate culture, and you're arguing whether or not high-achievers are more important than average workers.

I've also worked in a bunch of places, and never saw an HR activity that didn't feel like a communist rally. You march, you smile, you clap, because if you don't you get a one way ticket to Siberia.

I'd also like to note that we've had communication and community building without communication degrees for longer than we've gone without electricity.

Yes, and what do you think being judged for not going to church or not going to the rally is? It puts social pressure on you to conform. Thats what social cohesion is, limiting the options available.

You may not like the culture they are building and enforcing, just the way i don't necessarily like that small town America forced gay people ro stay in the closet but it is a step towards a more homogeneous culture. And often that is led by "church ladies" or the equivalent. HR are the church ladies of your company. They tell the pastor you were seen at a strip club or with a woman other than your wife, so as to shame you and enforce certain standards.

And i already noted the communication degree is probably not necessary.

Yes, and what do you think being judged for not going to church or not going to the rally is? It puts social pressure on you to conform. Thats what social cohesion is, limiting the options available.

Social cohesion is persuading me to work for the benefit of the group. You can make me go through the motions with threats of ostracism, but you're not going to make me walk the extra mile for you, not unless there's something in it for me. That's the opposite of cohesion.

Maybe you're an outlier but history shows us people will do a lot to avoid being ostracised. Fear and shame are strong motivators and every cohesive society uses them liberally. Because they work on most people.

We learn them as kids very early. You'll get mocked for having the wrong shoes or being a nerd, or nowadays not being a nerd, and most people react by publicly at least going along with it. Not everyone of course, but enough.

People here are likely to be more contrarian than average, but for most people thesectools are extremely effective.

Maybe you're an outlier but history shows us people will do a lot to avoid being ostracised.

I'm not. The entire Eastern Block functioned the way I described, and you've misunderstood everything I'm saying. Yes people will do the bare minimum to avoid getting ostracised.

It seems the West is now determined to reproduce the East's success. Have fun doing so, but don't act surprised if the progressive dream of equality is achieved through making everything equally crap.

My point is this is already how it is and has been in the West. The change is just in what not how.

I'm in my 50's and this dynamic is entirely normal here.

I would just like to add that Western Conformism being the norm at all is arguably a strong reason why we're even having this discussion right now--the counter-culture rebelled so hard that it re-wrote our culture practically on accident. So, to echo Arjin's perspective, maybe we should strive to emulate neither the Commissars nor the HUAC.

With respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. In your arguments you only brought up absolute minorities as a counterpoint. Sure, they can be dominated. Them adhering to the rules only when they're afraid of being caught is fine because they're absolute minorities. The game is completely different when a good chunk of society is cynical.

I'm confused. Of course particular instances of social cohesion can fail. Christianity arguably lost its cohesive grip, "Wokeness" could lose its current grip or fail to entirely eclipse older ideologies, but the behaviours and the fact that the people pushing the social buttons are important remains. The bedrock of all social technologies starts with shame and fear and works from there. Christianity, communism, wokeness, whatever, i am not making value judgements about the particular ideology being pushed, just the generalities of HOW which they all share.

The fact remains in my opinion however that most people in most social do get "assimilated" and are not cynics. Thats what ideas such as doublethink and the king has got no clothes and people complaining about how people can flip ideas on mask mandates so easily gesture at. Its not based on facts its based on social pressures.

And most people (probably adaptively) bow to social pressure. Most assimilate it seamlessly into their world view, "light" cynics mouth the words only at first but as the old adage goes say something enough times and you begin to believe it.

That leaves only a small cadre of outliers, your "true" cynics which are likely to be over represented here. But nothing in my over 50 years on this earth across multiple countries makes me think they are the majority. Or even a large minority.

The fact remains in my opinion however that most people in most social do get "assimilated" and are not cynics.

Well, now I'm confused. All this time I've been arguing that they are and you never actually denied it until now. You were saying that cynically showing up at the events, and chanting the slogans is what social cohesion *is*.

And most people (probably adaptively) bow to social pressure.

I never said they don't, I'm saying that doesn't make them not cynics.

"light" cynics mouth the words only at first but as the old adage goes say something enough times and you begin to believe it.

So you think people actually believe the corporate propaganda about "we're a family"?

That leaves only a small cadre of outliers, your "true" cynics which are likely to be over represented here. But nothing in my over 50 years on this earth across multiple countries makes me think they are the majority. Or even a large minority.

Do the many countries include any post-communist ones? Actually, the question is a bit unfair, because I'd turn any answer you give against you. If you weren't there you have no chance of knowing what I'm talking about, and if you were and didn't see it, you were just blissfully unaware.

More comments

I think this is wrong: niceness and cooperation, voluntary selflessness, the whole Goddess-Of-Everything-Else stuff, that is how things get built. Shame and coercion only get you so far, but the externalities will eventually come back--and as we see right now, when the dam bursts, those leading the sudden revolution are more than happy to throw out the old baby with the nasty bathwater.

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