site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   37122 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.

By and large, progressive intellectuals and activists are not interested in being permanent rebels, they want to be the people making decisions at the end of the day.

That's where next generation of rebels come in. You can't have a permanent revolution changing things toward the ideal society if you let one generation think it got it exactly right.

It's the struggle that matters - that's the only thing.

Can you define "permanent revolution" for me? Because I think you and the people in question have very different understandings of what those are.

Secondly, they're not creating a generation of rebels. They only become rebels insofar as the current system is undesirable. Progressives do not raise children with the terminal goal of fighting without respect to what is being fought for. Their terminal values are things that, if implemented, they would 100% not tolerate deviation from.

"permanent revolution"

The idea marxists have - that by being extremely critical and active against injustices you feel exist in the world you can usher in a better world. That criticism while having no clear idea or plan on what to do is still the right thing to do. etc.

Progressives do not raise children with the terminal goal of fighting *without respect to what is being fought for

That's the beauty of it. Adolescent rebellion along with the right memes is enough.

Hasn't it worked out ? Didn't Marcuse get a heart attack confronting radical left students? Aren't the radical leftists who so infuriated Marcuse now entrenched in academia and being replaced by far more progressives ? Etc..

The idea marxists have - that by being extremely critical and active against injustices you feel exist in the world you can usher in a better world. That criticism while having no clear idea or plan on what to do is still the right thing to do. etc.

This is completely at odds with Marxist usage of that term. It does not, despite it's name, work as a transhistorical concept. The entire idea is that socialists and communists need to ensure they don't get corrupted and complacent by working with democratic institutions and allying themselves with less radical political parties. It refers to a practice that was in place in the 19th and first half of the 20th century and doesn't work once you get into the 1960s and even less so with the collapse of international socialism/communism as a serious force.

You're free to define terms how you want. But the people who you claim use it that way would disagree.

That's the beauty of it. Adolescent rebellion along with the right memes is enough.

Literally every society ever has dealt with adolescent rebellion.

Hasn't it worked out ? Didn't Marcuse get a heart attack confronting radical left students? Aren't the radical leftists who so infuriated Marcuse now entrenched in academia and being replaced by far more progressives ? Etc..

This only supports my point and contradicts yours. The people in question have a clear understanding about what their utopia is. Go ask any progressive, Marxist, etc. and they will tell you that their system is moral, meaning that they do not tolerate deviation from it.

Do not conflate long-term rebellion with the idea that they are rebels first and ideological second.

Literally every society ever has dealt with adolescent rebellion.

Yeah, but we stopped.

Who stopped?

The western society. We're not handling teenage rebellion anymore, we're letting it be used to damage our society.

Let's get more specific - when you say rebellion, are we talking about the general "fuck you" attitude teenagers have to what adults tell them, or are we specifically talking about progressive youth activism?

I meant it in the sense of using the "fuck you, dad" sentiment to deconstruct social institutions that could get in the way of the establishment. For all my issues with the progressive movement, it doesn't feel right to pin it all on them.

More comments

The people in question have a clear understanding about what their utopia is.

No, they don't.

They have a mess of vague, contradictory beliefs and values.

They don't know, they pretend to know what they want.

They have a mess of vague, contradictory beliefs and values.

No more than anyone else.

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