site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33462 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Don't confuse discussions of the costs of wokeness' and affirmative action with the idea that total segregation is somehow more productive.

This seems to presuppose that segregation is always a net negative, which doesn't seem warranted to me.

Contingent on some hypothetical populations themselves being a net negative, doesn't it seem likely that integration could itself carry enormous costs?

As I say, I don't think ending segregation was per se the problem.

Well, terminating segregation in the US seems to have been more a symptom than a cause of the disease which is now killing us, so I don't think that it'd have made much of a difference. Perhaps, as a step on the road, it would have been better to delay it longer? But it was already inevitable by that point. And who knows, maybe keeping it around longer would actually have antagonized the leninists into going even farther even faster.

But if I lived in one of the communities destroyed by integration, I think a pro-segregation position would be obvious. If I'd lost social cohesion, property, and possibly even loved ones. I don't live in such a community, because I'm blessed to be able to live in a community with almost none of that sort of problem. It's expensive, but hey, segregation is. Revealed preferences would seem to indicate that everyone who can afford it finds the price tag worthwhile.

I suppose there are hypothetical populations of uniformly idiotic demon spawn where that would be the case. In really existing America early desegregation of industry took place to increase defense production not because of widespread adoption of egalitarian views. In general reallocating labor from agriculture to industry was a winning strategy in the 20th century and segregation was an impediment to this reallocation of labor.

If you think that markets are generally better at allocating labor than governments then you might predict that de jure segregation would generally have high costs.

If you think that markets are generally better at allocating labor than governments then you might predict that de jure segregation would generally have high costs.

Finally, I'd like to point out that it's the existence of a genetic/cultural subclass which has high costs. Those costs can either be borne in common (as in segregation, border enforcement, etc.) or externalized to the individual. When de jure segregation ended the cost of it didn't go down -- it was simply transferred to the families who found that suddenly the wife needed a full-time job so they could afford a house in 'a good neighborhood with good schools'.

Modern Americans pay through the nose for segregation! Only it's much messier and more expensive because instead of coordinating to make it cost-effective, we're if anything coordinating to fight it. This serves the wealthy who can display status and power by being unconcerned about the rising cost of segregation. Good luck to everyone else, I guess.

I suppose there are hypothetical populations of uniformly idiotic demon spawn where that would be the case.

Also, I think it's dishonest to stipulate that they have to be uniform. You telling me that a population of 99% idiotic demon spawn and 1% normal people wouldn't be worth keeping at a distance? Where's the line? Isn't there a debate to be had here?

Besides which the question starts to come down to why we have nations, or borders, or militaries, or law enforcement, or locks to begin with.

The Central Asian steppe nomads didn't have to be 100% idiotic demon spawn for it to still be very much worthwhile for China to build a giant wall.

Given any polity, there are groups which would probably be net-negative to have integrate on equal terms. There are many layers of defense against this happening. What to do when they're already next door, already citizens? Shrug and give up? Watch your communities unravel, your institutions collapse, your cities decay?

The only reason we can even pretend (for peacocking status reasons) that this might be acceptable is that fossil fuels have given us this staggering amount of wealth. Wish we wouldn't have squandered it, but especially I wish we weren't squandering it on this in particular.

If you think that markets are generally better at allocating labor than governments then you might predict that de jure segregation would generally have high costs.

You have a point here -- my distrust of integration lies rather in that I don't expect the market to be allowed to sort things out.

EDIT: To be clear, integration plus forced (at gunpoint) 'equity' is just directionally toward Harrison Bergeron and I think we can agree there are major costs there.

Yes, I'd like (actual) equality under the law and the market and individuals and communities to be allowed to find their own level, and for those who sink to not be massively subsidized by those who swim. Compassion, I think, does not extend to perpetuating dysfunction.

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