site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34967 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can you link the studies?

According to privilege theory, this is impossible. ADHD medications are disproportionately given to white boys, the most privileged cohort on the planet.

Not being a proponent of privilege theory myself this doesn't sound like a steel man. I don't think that people who support privilege theory think that whites being helped is a fundamental force of the universe, it's believe to be sourced from human bias, which is known to be fallible.

Pharma executives -- most of them white males -- are not going to shield white males outside old boy networks. Hence dementia-inducing medication given to white boys, and highly addictive opioids given to white men. Theorized general connection between white elite and all the other whites is just not there. There is only shareholder satisfaction.

This I do think is true and under appreciated by the identitarian based theories. Liberal white men do not have much of an in group bias and where they hold the reins the power is rarely used to help whites or men as a class because whites and men don't really have class consciousness. And I think the people trying to awaken this class consciousness might discover why that particular hatchet was buried to all of our losses.

Can you link the studies?

Linked now in op

And I think the people trying to awaken this class consciousness might discover why that particular hatchet was buried to all of our losses.

That's just called "accelerationism" though. It's revealing that the best idea that labor has to deal with the usurious taxes of capital is "try to speed the inevitable collapse along", but then again that's probably the reason why they're labor in the first place.

But then again... is there really a problem with this?

I always figured it's an evo-psych thing: losing a war in ancient times generally meant being sold into slavery (labor and capital alike), but if that slavery was better than the slavery your own society imposed then it's very difficult to argue that resisting was the right call (and "then we won't fight for you; better to die trying to kill you than the supposed enemy" is a decently effective threat- draftees killing your officers with the guns you necessarily had to give them is not good for military efficiency).

And we see this played out through history. If the population legitimately considers the enemy to be a better choice over their own rulers (or at least, insufficiently bad to bother throwing bodies at the problem with no guarantee of victory), they'll let them walk right on into the city. Ancient cities in the path of invading armies did this time and time again when the invaders weren't actually that much different than them and they'd rather avoid the siege- this is why people pay Dane-geld in the first place. If the price is right, it can work.

The best example of this was, in my opinion, the Taliban reconquest of Afghanistan. No Afghani defended Kabul- the average Afghani male actively chose the Taliban over Western ways because he knew what the enemy wanted, and what they wanted wasn't worth dying to resist. Sure, sucks for the women, but they were perfectly capable of mounting a defense of the city themselves because they were Liberated and Strong per the imported/imposed Western ideology... well, apparently the Islamic view was more correct.

By contrast, the Ukrainian response to invading Russians. Guess the men must feel like they have something worth defending; they could have welcomed the Russians to deal with their "Nazi problem" and their first strike teams were claimed to have been found with riot gear to enforce the peace (that might be propaganda though), but they very clearly did not do that.

The best example of this was, in my opinion, the Taliban reconquest of Afghanistan.

I enjoyed the recent Bennett's Phylactery podcast on this topic. I'm no expert and have done no work to verify details, but the core points make sense in any case.

Not being a proponent of privilege theory myself this doesn't sound like a steel man. I don't think that people who support privilege theory think that whites being helped is a fundamental force of the universe, it's believe to be sourced from human bias, which is known to be fallible.

If you follow the logic of the actually existing privilege theory, rather than allow theorists do damage control after being confronted with an uncomfortable example, then he's right. There was a relatively recent discussion on TheMotte (still back on reddit, I believe), where the fortification of milk was being used as an example of systemic racism. There was no evidence provided for bias being in any way involved, and it never is. The existence of the discrepancy is always evidence for systemic racism in itself. At the very least that would mean our society is systemically racist against white people, and that is explicitly said to be impossible by privilege theorists.

I see now(and that you mentioned this and I missed it) that you're using privilege theory as a moniker for all of the social justice/woke/progressive and not the more narrow subsection of their theory. I still think this is a failing of the ideological Turing test. Even by their theories if we eliminate privilege we're all supposed to be uplifted and thus a 'universe with whites in charge can only do things that help whites' contradicts 'if we don't hold down people of color then we'll all benefit from their unique perspectives'. You can assert that they're only espousing that second axiom as a cynical lie but this is not a steel man and fails the sniff test to me as I live among the progressives and this is not how they think. Right or wrong they truly believe.

I see now(and that you mentioned this and I missed it) that you're using privilege theory as a moniker for all of the social justice/woke/progressive and not the more narrow subsection of their theory.

I disagree. If anything, isn't "systemic dyscrimination" a subsection of privilege theory, rather than the other way around?

You can assert that they're only espousing that second axiom as a cynical lie but this is not a steel man and fails the sniff test to me as I live among the progressives and this is not how they think. Right or wrong they truly believe.

I'm only accusing them of contradicting themselves, whether that's because of cynical lies, or bias of their own, or some other explanation, is not relevant to me. There's a very simple way to prove me wrong. Find me an example from their literature where they consider some example of disparate outcome as a potential example of systemic discrimination, but ultimately argue against it because of lack of evidence of bias. Alternatively you can show me how they call out a case of systemic racism against white people.

Alternatively you can show me how they call out a case of systemic racism against white people.

Ibram Kendi DID note structural barriers for whites and the incentives to "pass" it created.

And his response to people noticing this was just to delete it and pretend otherwise.

This way leads to the mountains of skulls. It must be resisted until it cannot be.

I'm not endorsing the racial consciousness of any group. I preach color blindness and believe that we can return to it. Wokeness has not been around in the mainstream public consciousness for all that long and what it has wrought has been quite negative. It very much could still crumble. Call it copium if you must but I still see a way out. Your average progressive supporter has not peaked behind the curtain, they do not pay attention to the rhetoric or underlying belief structure. They simply think that progressivism is kindness. The facade cannot hold forever, the wrongness of the theory becomes more apparent every day. You see it with schooling reform, you see it with trans kids, you see it with police funding. Progressives can sell the credulous public on trying some policy but when these policies bear fruits and the fruits turn to ash on the average person's tongue the average person still trusts their senses and spits it out. Liberalism runs deep and can still be saved.

Also a response to @chickenoverlord

I think it does indeed run deep. When talking to progressives their arguments are often rooted in a kind of disjointed liberalism. They talk about unfairness, discrimination, equal treatment under the law as a goal that they believe we're failing. These are fundamentally liberal ideals. They can be induced to mouth and chant unexamined slogans about oppressors and Marx adjacent things but they do not recognize the Marx in it. When it comes down to actually needing to reason instead of regurgitate I have always found they fall back on liberalism immediately and instinctually.

To a large degree BLM is founded on a belief that we do not have equal treatment under the law. I know there is more under the hood than that but I think the main kernel that differentiates BLM from all lives matter is the assumption that black people are in fact treated particularly bad. Whether it's true or not I'm sure could be a matter of lively debate here but they do believe not.

I think you have it backwards. The normies believe in the disjointed liberal stuff. The progressives do not (and often enough claim these ideas are somehow racist or problematic); they believe in the oppressor stuff, but will often use liberal terms to keep the normies happy.

Case in point: "When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression". Which Al Yankovich put better as "they kick you and they beat you and they tell you it's fair".

Perhaps we're just describing the same thing with different labels. I was describing the normies that parrot the progressive party line as progressives. You can call them normies with deep fundamental liberalism and then I think our main disagreement is the relative size of the groups.

Liberalism runs deep and can still be saved.

Does it run deep? As much as I love it, it seems to largely be the product of English culture and institutions, and the weirdos who were most into it self-selected and yeeted themselves across the ocean to America. Continental Europeans never really seemed to get behind it, given their love of handing over absolute power to the state. And of late England and most of its former colonies other than the US seem more in favor of giving absolute power to the state rather than anything remotely resembling liberal democracy. The US is the last bastion of anyone and everyone who gives the smallest fuck about limiting state power, and even then it's a dwindling number. Covid lockdowns alone should have been enough to convince you of that.

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