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.

Stereotypes are not always based on rational observations of what most members of a group do.

That was not my claim.

My claim was :

I don't know how many money-lenders in a given group you need for that group to be associated with greedy money-lending, maybe only 1 in 100 or 1 in a 1000, but that is definitely what happened.

nor does it come close to imply, as you do, that there is something inherent to the Jewish character that makes them seek money above other things.

Choosing to become a money-lender does indicate something about the character of an individual, that they choose wealth over reputation.

For example Sam Bankman-Fried chose wealth / power over reputation.

You think Jews in a position to become rich in the only avenue available to them would have said "Hmm, better not do that, people might think even less of Jews than they do now?"

They could have. Or simply 'being wealthy is not worth having a whole village/town hate me and my family'.

It's a choice that individuals have made in history. The ones that were spectacularly successful with that strategy (avoided the pitchforks) ended up migrating all over the world it turns out, and now they are in charge of the Western world's media and academia and telling me that I shouldn't dislike them for being money-lenders.

That's the thing with greed, it gives you power.

There are no fat people that got so fat that they managed to take over society and tell everyone else : 'you're not allowed to tell me to go on a diet!'

And if you tell me, but not all Jews are money-lenders.

That's true. But the people that claim to speak on behalf of groups of or all Jews (the ADL, the World Jewish Congress, etc) never disavow money-lenders.

If you don't want me to believe that most if not all Jews support greedy money-lenders who push for open-border propaganda, feminism (contraception, anti-family policies, promiscuity) etc, then show me these groups of Jews who disavow them!

I assume you'd also say this heuristic is reasonable to apply to, say, white people, Europeans, Christians, etc.?

Very much so. If a Japanese woman told me that she stays away from white Americans due to the crime rate of American servicemen, I would understand.

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