site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35347 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The "Communist Party of Britain" is a tiny Stalinist sect. The CPB should not be confused with the Communist Party of Great Britain. The CPB was formed as an offshoot of the slightly more mainstream CPGB in the 1980s when the leadership of the latter decided "hm, maybe totalitarianism and mass murder is bad". From the first paragraph of the CPB's Wikipedia article:

It is affiliated nationally to the Cuba Solidarity Campaign[10] and the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign. (...) After the fall of the Soviet Union, the party was one of two original British signatories to the Pyongyang Declaration.

The Pyongyang Declaration:

The Pyongyang Declaration, officially titled Let Us Defend and Advance the Cause of Socialism, was a statement signed by a number of political parties on 20 April 1992 that calls for the unity of the socialist camp and a vow to safeguard socialism. Representatives of 70 communist and socialist parties from 51 countries arrived in Pyongyang to celebrate Kim Il-sung's 80th birthday.

So you would side with (even vote for!) these Stalinists, North Korea apologists, wannabe mass murderers, these certified lunatics, because they said "trans bad"?

You will surely understand why your post doesn't make me more sympathetic to the anti-trans side.

So you would side with (even vote for!) these Stalinists, North Korea apologists, wannabe mass murderers, these certified lunatics, because they said "trans bad"?

The Trans Question in an actual, living political issue in western countries. It matters; it has a direct impact on people's lives. Taking a stand one way or the other entails having some amount of skin in the game. An individual's views on trans issues are a strong signal of what sort of social classifications they belong to.

In contrast to being pro- or anti-trans, being pro- or anti-Stalin is much closer to being a personal aesthetic choice. It's a dead issue. There is no realistic chance of anyone implementing a Stalinist agenda in any western democracy. It's spatially and temporally distant from us; one is free to treat it with a degree of irony.

From that perspective, someone's views on trans issues say a lot more to me about what type of person they are than their views on Stalinism. I choose my political allies based on their perspectives on living issues, living questions. Their views on dead issues and lost causes are less relevant.

There is no realistic chance of anyone implementing a Stalinist agenda in any western democracy.

Some would disagree in reference to the Critical Theory Revolution. No, it won't have red banners, hammers-and-sickles, and drawn-out applauses for Uncle Joe, but the substance would still be there.

Im not sure I care about what sways your opinion. What I like about the CPB is that they are one of the few socialist parties to describe trans as a neoliberal project.

Why would you like that, it’s not solely a neoliberal project, it’s clearly much far reaching than “neoliberal”, and especially rich considering it was vastly overrepresented in the left before it was present anywhere else including the neoliberal Center.

Why wouldn’t I like that. I’m not a communist, a socialist, a neo liberal or a neo conservative. Or a green, mainly because they have unworkable policies. So I vote for the best option.

Confusing

You will surely understand why this doesn't make me more sympathetic to the anti-trans side.

No I don't. By your own admission this is a tiny Stalinist sect. The majority of communists nowadays are pro trans. It's a bit weird that the same thing doesn't make you lose sympathy for the pro-trans side.

Sorry, by "this", I meant the post I was replying to. I have edited the comment now to clarify.

The reason the post doesn't make me more sympathetic to the anti-trans side is that it was someone from the anti-trans side who saw this insane Stalinist sect post something anti-trans and then apparently decided that Stalinism isn't so bad after all as long as it keeps trans women out of women's toilets.

It still comes off as "it's ok if you vote for the commies, as long it's the pro-trans ones" given the leanings of communists, and trans activists.

I think Tarn's comment was more along the lines of something Brandon Hererra once said in a Gun Meme Review video: "stop simping for Communists." You're interpreting it in the other direction.

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