site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33394 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 17, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But, I as I am sure you know, many people -- especially older people in places like Missouri -- are more fearful of young black males than of other people

I mean, it's not for no reason. There have been repeated pogroms of older white people by influxes of younger black populations that have been totally ignored by institutions that have turned a blind eye towards the horrors this older generations must now suffer. At one point another poster shared many, many excerpts from one such study about it. I wish I had kept a bookmark for it. Maybe said poster will crop back up and repost it.

ChatGPT: There is a reason for this. Institutions have ignored the repeated attacks on older white people by younger black populations. Another user previously shared excerpts from a study about this issue. I regret not saving it. Hopefully, that user will return and share it again.

At one point another poster shared many, many excerpts from one such study about it. I wish I had kept a bookmark for it.

I couldn't find where it was mentioned here, but could it have been excerpts from a book on Rosedale, Tx? https://twitter.com/godclosemyeyes/status/1414619671056297984?

The racial violence there and the excuses for it from white liberal academics qualified it as a state supported pogrom by any standard.

"by any standard"? It doesn't even qualify under a reasonable standard. The definition usually includes a riot, those are isolated incidents. And those crimes are prosecuted by the state, regardless of the excuses liberal academics offer.

It's just as obnoxious when the ultra-progressive left refers to incidents of white on black violence as 'genocide'. "But it's a little bit like a genocide/pogrom..." . That's not how words work, all animals are not dogs.

As the worst argument in the world goes: "X is in a category whose archetypal member gives us a certain emotional reaction. Therefore, we should apply that emotional reaction to X, even though it is not a central category member."

Swap the races and see how that plays out. Gangs of white teenagers gang rape and murder terrified black women, while the local government and academics say "lol. lmao. It's ok, she had it coming because her grandfather might have been a gang member. No need to do anything, because our boys will run out of victims soon enough"

That is a pogrom.

No. This author is not the state.

What? The people he was talking to were government officials in the town of Rosedale, and social workers running programs there. Are we talking about the same thing here?

I'm talking about the law. Prosecutors who refuse to prosecute the crimes, judges who refuse to condemn.

That is exactly it, thank you.

One of the most frequent sources for descriptions of what could reasonably be described as a an anti-white pogrom was the book Left Behind in Rosedale. A relatively tame example:

Some of the street assaults do not even involve acts of theft. One elderly man who had been stabbed on the streets of Rosedale explained in a bewil-dered tone: "There was a black man that stabbed me. April the first, that would be two years ago that it happened. I was here on Thackery and I was shopping. And there was a colored man there. I turned to see where he was at, and the next thing I knew, why he was coming right up behind me. And I still got scars. Why, I was in the hospital for about five weeks. He didn't take a thing from me."

When asked why he thought he was attacked, he said: "It doesn't add up, you know. He didn't take my watch. He didn't take my change, my billfold or anything. I feel like he was afraid of something. I don't know what. I finally walked across the street, to a light. I walked in a store and fell down. They never caught him, you know. They asked me to identify him, but all I know is that he was a black man. He just comeu behind me and stabbed me."

I mean, it's not for no reason.

Yes, that's what I said.

There have been repeated pogroms of older white people

I don't know that the use of terms like "pogrom" to refer to the phenomenon to which you refer gives me much confidence that you are interested in engaging seriously with the very real issues raised by this incident, rather than being interested in engaging in the culture war.

I think that word is perfectly appropriate and accurate. Your aspersions, on the other hand, make me think you're the one not engaging seriously. You clearly understood what was meant, but are engaging with the diction instead.

Well, I understand the OP to be referring to street crime. Which does not in any way, shape, or form, constitute a "pogrom." OP is intentionally using an inaccurate, emotionally loaded word, which, as they say, casts much more heat than light.

Where does this fall on the pogrom-street crime scale?

As for the reference, @WhiningCoil said

I mean, it's not for no reason. There have been repeated pogroms of older white people by influxes of younger black populations that have been totally ignored by institutions that have turned a blind eye towards the horrors this older generations must now suffer. At one point another poster shared many, many excerpts from one such study about it. I wish I had kept a bookmark for it. Maybe said poster will crop back up and repost it.

And I think I know what he's referencing. It's the book Left Behind in Rosedale: Race Relations and the Collapse of Community Institutions. Specific to the claim of elderly, I think he's thinking of this thread on twitter from a few years back. The second and third in sequence deal specifically with the elderly. Later in the thread you get this collection of excerpts.

None of those are pogroms, or even close. And if you are arguing that OP was using "pogrom" to refer to demographic change and the associated changes in institutions discussed in that book, well, with friends like you, he doesn't need enemies.

It's always words, words, words with you people. I need to start feeding my comments through chatgpt so it can properly neolib the vernacular to not trigger you.

I wouldn't mod you for using "pogrom," but people are allowed to take issue with your use of the word.

This response is just petulant belligerence. You've piled up quite a few warnings for doing this kind of thing, but you've also been cut quite a bit of slack. I told you very clearly with the last one to chill out and stop posting things you know perfectly well will get modded, or you will start getting modded harder.

I don't know if your seething animosity has just reached the boiling point and you really are unable to control yourself, or if you're going for the "Mods are mean to me for telling THE TRUTH!" martyr route, but this time you get a three-day ban.

I mean how else are you really supposed to respond when someone picks out an, honest to god random as far as my sensibilities are calibrated, word out of a post and goes "Because of this word, I have declared you no longer worthy of engaging with".

Well, there are numerous ways you could respond.

You could decide that if he doesn't want to engage and you find engagement not worth it, to not engage.

Or you could say "I think dismissing my post because you don't like that I used a word is unreasonable."

Or you could say "I think pogrom is entirely appropriate in this context: here's why."

Lots of ways, really.

But not with snarky comments like "feeding my comments through chatgpt so it can properly neolib the vernacular to not trigger you."

Come on, you're too smart to play stupid; when you uncork, you know you're uncorking, and either you know you're going to get modded or you're just hoping it won't get noticed. I do not believe for one hot second that you really thought any mod here, reading the report on that one, would say "Yeah, that's fine."

I was not joking, and i seriously am contemplating using chatgpt, because a lot of these are coming out of nowhere at me. At some point the overton window or the vernacular allowed here shifted out from under me. You think I "uncorked" but that was me trying to problem solve. You only further proved to me I now need an AI sensitivity reader to post here.

You do what you think you have to do, my man, but bluntly: I do not believe you. This had nothing to do with allowable vernacular or overton windows (the person you were arguing with objected to "pogrom" - I did not, and that's not why you got modded) and "I need to run my words throught ChatGPT so I don't trigger you" was not a sincere attempt at "problem-solving," it was you expressing your contempt.

I have contempt for many problems I am forced to solve that shouldn't be problems in the first place. Problems and contempt go hand in hand.

When people are overly sensitive in reacting to your posts, why grow sensitive yourself? Just shrug it off.

A) I'd love to if I wasn't now eating bans for it and

B) I'm not growing more sensitive. I find the overly sensitive values here repugnant to me, and to avoid having to meaningfully interface with them, I'm going to use an AI. Seems the perfect tool to resist the inherent weakness of this place bleeding back into my world view.

More comments

Oh, give me a break. As if you did not intentionally chose the word, "pogrom." And, having done that, you won't even own up to it.

Of course I intentionally chose it. I chose all the words I typed. How is that even in question? You never even explained what is wrong with it. You just went "Oh, that's a no-no word. Disqualified!"

No, it is not a no-no word. My point was that its use in this case is a lie.

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