site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   37215 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 10, 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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You are calling for a world in which male Antifa members should be able to vote but women like Ann Coulter and @2rafa should not. Interesting.

If your argument in favor of such a world is that it is not pragmatically possible to measure each individual's level of voting based on empathy and so we need a heuristic as crude as "sort by genders", then you probably might as well just give up on democracy completely because at that point you might as well just say "well, only people I personally trust to vote the way I want them to should be allowed to vote".

You would probably have to do that one way or another in order to get the world that you want because the vast majority of men disagree with you. Indeed, even 100 years ago a majority of men disagreed with you, which is how women got the right to vote to begin with.

This is why America's constitutional republic is something of a miracle, as broken as it is . Anyone who meets a broad set of criteria is able to participate in the process, yet the Electoral College keeps a good equilibrium between the interests of the masses vs. the minority. White, male property owners are outnumbered in popular vote but their votes carry more weight in the Electoral College.

or on the other extreme, China's politburo system, which seems to work well too.

Direct democracies seem to be the worse.

I think @motteposter is misidentifying his grievence with women to empathy. Mencius Moldbug wrote something like "Democracy is rule by who controls the media". I do not think this is universally the case. But women have a higher degree of conformity then men, and so are susceptible towards propaganda that portrays a minority viewpoint as consensus. I recall a study where researchers showed girls social media posts with randomly generated numbers of likes; their subjective rating of these posts matched the forged community opinion. You can steer the overton window in this way.

In pictures I see of the third reich, the ones most enthusiastically waving the swatztika flags and doing the Hitler salute at rallies are young women. Is that them being "empathetic"? No, it's social contagion. The media tells them that Nazism is socially desirable and good, and liberalism is unthinkable. And so they wave their flags. This makes democracies with female franchise singularly unstable and vulnerable to the most passionate power-seeking minority in its meme ecosystem. We are currently being driven off a cliff by such a one.

This leaves me in a bind, because I still feel myself a liberal in my bones, and female equality is a natural and inevitable derived principle of liberalism. I have said before (maybe joking) that extra votes to parents for their children might be a workable approach.

In pictures I see of the third reich, the ones most enthusiastically waving the swatztika flags and doing the Hitler salute at rallies are young women.

This might have been propaganda. Like how at Trump rallies they would always find a few black guys and put them right behind Trump so they would be in the frame on TV. A large part of the Nazi narrative was that National Socialist women were fit, attractive, proper, German, and loyal, unlike the hedonistic communist sluts who smoke and play cards.

I recall a study where researchers showed girls social media posts with randomly generated numbers of likes; their subjective rating of these posts matched the forged community opinion. You can steer the overton window in this way.

That sounds like the sort of thing I'd expect to see in a Metal Gear Solid game.

This leaves me in a bind, because I still feel myself a liberal in my bones, and female equality is a natural and inevitable derived principle of liberalism.

Every time that impulse rears its ugly head in my heart I beat it bloody by remembering Ukraine and the draft, and concluding that enfranchisement should be only for those expected to die for it.

In pictures I see of the third reich, the ones most enthusiastically waving the swatztika flags and doing the Hitler salute at rallies are young women. Is that them being "empathetic"? No, it's social contagion. The media tells them that Nazism is socially desirable and good, and liberalism is unthinkable. And so they wave their flags.

Worth noting that Nazism was disproportionately popular with women before the Nazis came to power (IIRC the most popular single party with women, before it was the case for men or the population as a whole). Least popular was KPD.

it was not women who were sent to die in wars started by the nazis.

I mean Ann Coulter has regularly called for this...

Ah, I did not realize that she was that out there.

I think this this the most recent one, but she's said it many times.

https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/22/ann-coulter-says-women-shouldnt-have-right-vote-19th-amendment-missouri-state-university/8528256002/

2rafa also isn't American, so she already can't vote in the elections that matter.

You are calling for a world in which male Antifa members should be able to vote but women like Ann Coulter and @2rafa should not. Interesting.

I really don't like arguments that boil down to, "You claim some distribution has a mean of X, but what say you about the area beneath the curve over here, a whole two standard deviations away!!" Unless someone is claiming that no counterexamples exist, pointing out counterexamples usually implies...nothing at all, really.

Do you actually disagree with the assertion that men vote more conservatively than women on average, or what? Was OP's mistake simply that he didn't make that claim in such precise terms?

Do you actually disagree with the assertion that men vote more conservatively than women on average, or what?

If this is supposed to be common across all societies, then the assertion is falsified. For example, at least until recently, the UK Conservatives did better among women voters than male voters.

Men vote more conservatively than women on average but the difference is not huge. My point is that if the heuristic that @motteposter feels compelled to use to ensure support for his chosen policies is so immensely crude as to simply sort by genders, then at that point @motteposter might as well consider not supporting democracy at all. After all, the logical next step after removing women's suffrage is removing some men's suffrage, probably also based on average characteristics of the groups that they belong to. And so on.

Or maybe @motteposter is more motivated by wanting to dunk on women than by actually wanting his chosen policies to be implemented, which is why he is making this into a gender thing to begin with. That too is possible.

You take women out of politics you change the political landscape because media is no longer catering to female sensitivities.

The anti female suffragist had a lot of interesting things to say about how female suffrage would change society.

The media (as opposed to politicians) cater to female sensitivities because women tend to do the family shopping, which makes them more valuable to advertisers. "Soap operas" are called "soap operas" because they were paid for by detergent ads. At the time, packaged detergent was the most sophisticated mass-market consumer product, which made Proctor & Gamble and Unilever the most valuable advertisers. Even growing up in the 1980's, my sister (who watched soap operas) knew every brand of laundry detergent on the market before she left primary school. Needless to say, I did not - which would not have bothered an advertiser whose assumptions about gender roles were normal for the 1980's.

Most of the people I know who want to restrict/eliminate women’s suffrage are also very open about wanting to restrict/eliminate the suffrage of many categories of men as well, so what you’re treating as a reductio ad absurdum may very well be OP’s position. I agree with you that simply banning all women from voting probably won’t magically fix all of the problems he brought up, and that the cause of these problems is far more multifaceted than he is presenting.

That being said, there is something to be said for the way that women’s suffrage is uniquely corrosive to democracies in a way that suffrage for, say, minority ethnic group suffrage isn’t: it’s way harder for men to treat women as an adversarial political faction, since men have no choice but to stay on good terms with women in order to, you know, propagate the species. In a multiracial democracy, the majority group can simply politically marginalize and outcompete the minority group - “there’s more of us than there are of you, so you lose, sucks to suck” - but in a democracy with women’s suffrage, the men are absolutely forced to make many concessions to women. Not only because, by definition, women will always be approximately as numerous as men, but also because the nature of the relationship between men and women is that most men will naturally capitulate to the social and sexual pressure exerted by women. So, a society with women’s suffrage will not simply become more feminized in proportion to the number of female votes; the women will actually tend to punch above their weight politically, until the feminine/empathic approach to politics becomes the default consensus in such countries.

the vast majority of men disagree with you. Indeed, even 100 years ago a majority of men disagreed with you, which is how women got the right to vote to begin with.

They got the vote after a massive slaughter of young able-bodied men.

The vast majority that disagrees is going extinct.

Idk if the Mormons or the Amish care about women's vote. These are the rising sub-groups among the population that actually cares to implement democracy.

Women of the future have 2 choices, Sharia law or... White Sharia law.

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