site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   38429 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Since when is importance and representativeness relevant to these conversations? Never heard about it during the Christchurch shooting.

Personally, I don't think it even matters how representative it is. What matters is that many in the movement don't call out their own for bad behavior like this. And this extends to every time someone in the trans movement has committed some form of bad behavior.

That sounds a lot like the bailey for asking politicians to disavow white supremacy.

Well they have, haven't they? At least people like Trump have, multiple times.

I'm sure I can find a twitter account with around 500 followers who has not disavowed white supremacy if I tried.

Would that be proof enough for you?

If now then why do we care so much about TRN? What's the difference?

Proof of what?

And the analogue isn't a 500-follower account who has not disavowed white supremacy, it's one that explicitly promotes it. Though, I'd imagine that such accounts are censored (or at least were before Elon Musk took over). In any case, I think it's reasonable to understand that any disavows of white supremacy would also disavow any 500-follower accounts promoting white supremacy.

You have it backwards, we cared about white supremacy so much that even Trump was forced to condemn a small grouo od extremists he had no ties to.

The question is why don't we care about TRN as much? What's the difference?

Because TRN is a nobody, and Trump was the president of the United States.

Seems like a pretty big difference to me.

The analogy isn't to Trump condemning himself, or to white supremacists present at Chrlotesville condemning themselves, the analogy is to Trump condemning the white nationalists present at Charlotesville. "TRN is a nobody, and Trump was the president of the United States" does not make any sense in the context of the analogy. If anything it shows Biden should condemn TRN.

The point is that TRN is not analogous to Trump because Trump kinda represents the Republican party and TRN represents, like 500 people.

A more accurate analogy to what TRN is would be to take some random bozo on Stormfront and say "Look at this guy! He's not denouncing Right wing terrorism. This means that the Right is pro-terrorism"

More comments

How's the meme go?

My rules applied fairly

Your rules applied fairly

Your rules applied unfairly

Not sure I follow. I think demanding that politicians disavow random assholes is a cheap rhetorical trick, one that shouldn’t usually be applied.

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