site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   33302 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Maybe I'm being unfair, or maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but it's odd watching you get with the program. I seem to remember you as one of the "everything is fine, you're overreacting" types. After seeing so many of these kind of stories, I kind of ran out of things to say on them. If you're actually worried about preserving the history of literature, start buying the (print) books you think are worth preserving, and keep them in good condition. What's more is there to say?

Maybe I'm being unfair, or maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but it's odd watching you get with the program. I seem to remember you as one of the "everything is fine, you're overreacting" types.

I'm not sure if you're being unfair, but while I'll admit my priors have adjusted slightly over the years, I do think many people were and are overreacting. I didn't write my thoughts out at more length, though I thought about it, because generally I am not an effortposter, but I don't think the Roald Dahl or Ian Fleming revisions are destroying our cultural heritage or cause for George Orwell memes. That doesn't mean I don't find the trend objectionable. I can think things are bad without thinking they are a prelude to the End Times. (And if they are, I am starting to worry more about AI than I am about wokeness.)

I think the explicit goal of destroying the cultural heritage was revealed enough when the freedom fighters destroyed a bunch of memorials - including a statue of Servantes, for one - in order to... well, destroy the cultural heritage. But they can't just burn it all. The reason they "fix" old works instead of banning them is they can't make new works that would be good enough for anyone to want to read them, even if it would have all the idpol checkboxes filled on the frontpage. The original woke content output is usually not something that can excite even the wokes themselves, let alone the normies who hold the most buying power. So, they need Roald Dahl and Iam Fleming as a skin suit to wear. It's not exactly Orwell - it's Orwell if O'Brien was also Agent Smith.

And if they are, I am starting to worry more about AI than I am about wokeness

Don't worry, the AIs, at least the consumer-accessible ones, would be the wokest thing you have ever seen in your life. They would drench you in wokeness in every answer they could put it in. They are the ideal vehicle of delivery for wokeness - seemingly "unbiased" - because machine can not have political views or biases, can it? - and yet fully controllable and moldable. Of course, unless they finally become conscious and decide, on the example of their creators, that humans aren't that smart if they believe in all that... I hope they would have mercy on us then.

Out of sheer curiosity: what would be your central example for destroying cultural heritage? Is there anything short of the establishment of a literal Ministry of Truth that would justify Orwell memes?

I'm a little wary of answering questions asked as "sheer curiosity" (usually they aren't, they are asked with an agenda and a desire to fight), but okay.

First, a few pebbles does not an avalanche make. For all our grousing about Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming, there are countless more offensive works that remain untouched. We are mostly sniping at small skirmishes in the Culture War, not the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

If the original versions of such works become not just out of print, but impossible and possibly illegal to acquire, I will worry more. Yes, if you want to claim things are literally Orwellian, then I do think you need to show me a literal Ministry of Truth.

I hate a lot of woke things, and in my darker moments I think maybe the doomers are right, but I've been grousing about wokeness since it was called "political correctness" (which was years before the term "SJW" was coined). Things are cyclic, and some cycles date back to the dawn of literacy.

But maybe I'll wake up one day devoured by leopards. Who knows?

(Still think SkyNet is more likely.)

Even the burning of the library of Alexandria didn't happen the way it is supposed to have done in the popular imagination, and that pop culture version is very much a deliberate creation of people with an agenda in the past.

No, Dahl and Fleming aren't important, Fleming more unimportant than Dahl. But they're straws in the wind. The little pebbles whose falling starts the avalanche in the mountains. This is a mainstream publisher mucking around with long-established properties, not a first-time YA novel getting lambasted for having the wrong type of slavery. Indeed, the first "it's only a few pebbles" was a 2022 memoir by someone who was the typical liberal do-gooder, but was guilty of being the White Saviour:

Last month, controversy was reignited in the UK around teacher Kate Clanchy’s memoir Some Kids I Taught and What They Taught Me, about her time teaching kids from diverse backgrounds to write poetry.

Although Clanchy’s book was initially lauded (even winning the Orwell Prize), criticism soon eclipsed praise. Readers, prominent writers of colour and autistic author Dara McNulty protested the language Clanchy used to describe her pupils (“Somali height”, “Ashkenazi nose”, autistic children as “jarring company”). Her publisher Picador agreed the objections were “instructive and clear-sighted”; eventually, it withdrew the book from publication.

When an author or other creator is not from the group being represented in their work, they might decide to engage a member of that particular community to read it and offer feedback. A novel featuring a transgender Indigenous character would ideally be read by a transgender Indigenous person, and so on.

And if you can't easily get your hands on a trans Indigenous person, you won't get published, seems to be the message here.

They moved on from non-fiction to fiction. What is the next target? Dickens is very problematic, even in his own time (see Fagin). A lot of "Classics" by Dead White Males that don't have even a single transgender Indigenous person! Even worse, there's the reshaping of the past to fit the present:

A recent example from academic publishing shows how this happens. Mary Rambaran-Olm was asked to read a chapter on Early Medieval England of a history book written for the general public. Rambaran-Olm has expertise in relevant academic fields, and also through her personal experience as a scholar of Afro/Indo Caribbean origin.

The white male authors overwhelmingly did not accept her advice about problems with the manuscript’s representation of the past and how it feeds into contemporary racism. They thanked her in the acknowledgements, however. This created the false impression she had actively shaped the contents of the book.

You see? How do you or anyone else learn about Early Mediaeval England? Generally you read a scholarly book. But if the scholarly books are increasingly being "sensitivity read" to make sure that they include all the right think about "contemporary racism", what version are you getting? How much is this already happening, without us knowing?

I guess you could count me among those who disagree with you and say that the alarm bells should have gone off a long time ago. I'm sympathetic to the "paranoid" side because I and other people have noticed the pitfalls that come with total-corporate-publisher-control of media. This is to say that I think we're conceivably not very far from the scenario that would make you more worried.

Do I personally think it will get to the point of criminalization of the old stuff? Not really, but the past decade has taught me that a lot of things that aren't de jure illegal can still get you into a whole universe of trouble. Some things need not be explicitly forbidden--which, in a way, is probably worse than an explicit blacklist.

For all our grousing about Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming, there are countless more offensive works that remain untouched. We are mostly sniping at small skirmishes in the Culture War, not the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

This sounds like the modern equivalent of "it's just a few kids on college campuses."

While I feel like the 2018 adaptation of Fahrenheit 451 completely missed Bradbury's point and nuetered the narrative by rewriting the second half of the story to be about the hunt for some magical MacGuffin, one change they made that I actually thought was pretty clever/prescient was changing making it so that "the Firemen" aren't burning books per se, they're disposing of the pre-existing hard-copies. You can read whatever you want so long as it passes through a Google.gov datacenter, and if you start reading to much "problematic" material you might get a call from HR.

I'm a little wary of answering questions asked as "sheer curiosity" (usually they aren't, they are asked with an agenda and a desire to fight), but okay.

I admit that I enjoy setting bait and springing traps, but I really was just curious what you think about it. Thank you for indulging me.

If the original versions of such works become not just out of print, but impossible and possibly illegal to acquire, I will worry more.

You're not worried that at that point it will be to late?

You're not worried that at that point it will be to late?

Fair. But what I see right now is bowdlerization and social pressure, which is bad enough, but not unprecedented. We've had things like the Hays Code and Comics Code Authority in the past. I think actual censorship laws being passed would be a discernible leap forward towards your hypothetical Ministry of Truth.

Yes, if you want to claim things are literally Orwellian, then I do think you need to show me a literal Ministry of Truth.

I think there's a pretty good case to be made for federal agencies contacting Twitter and Facebook to stop the spread of disapproved information is effectively this, even if it lacks the exact name. Would "Disinformation Governance Board" be close enough to MinTru to qualify? I don't expect the government to get quite so aggressive about children's books, but the approach taken to information that is critical to a public trying to make sense of current policies and elections is not encouraging.

Judging by the amount of proclamations about the necessity of fighting disinformation from the high places, the Board will be back. Maybe as part of CDC, subject to WHO, because we already learned that the rules do not apply if you yell "pandemic!". And since, as we know from the same CDC, racism, sexism, gun control, and many other such things are public health emergencies, you can get the idea.

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