site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30430 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 8, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It just struck me. We haven’t had a pure meta thread. What is at the core of the breakdown in America between two sides. Is it just social media boosting of traditional sports team enthusiasm in sports? And at its core team left and team right get along in person but in online like fighting each other for entertainment? Team left likes standing up a fentanyl addicted criminal as a martyr or a male swimmer in female sports to accuse those who will take the other side as racists Hitler types? And team right likes to own them. Or is there some marxists conspiracy or Christian white behind all this?

I’ll take the view that traditional status symbols still dominate day to day life. I’ll take the view that liberal rich trust fund kid is still going to date the hot brunette from Vassar. And the liberal girl will still marry the frat boy whose parents are real estate developers.

Sure I’m setting up a lot of motte and Bailey’s. Is this just a game among elites and then followed on by keyboard warriors on social media.

It's not just the US, it's the whole anglosphere and it is because of 5 eyes attempts at manipulation of information to prevent a populism that can unite the people of any Anglo country in a way that might disrupt the current status quo.

I will never dismiss comments like these because I don't have all the answers. But how could we possibly know if this was the case?

You can't know unless you are inside, and telling anyone else has a best case outcome of ending up like Snowdon, so you can't know unless you know, in which case you already know but if you don't then you won't.

Then how do you know? There must be some information out there you are basing this on besides the existence of intelligence agencies in Anglo countries.

I don't know, I suspect based on inference. The Great War On Terror and all the fabrications by various intelligence agencies to shift public opinion (The UKs involvement with the Iraq war famously being due to a fake intelligence dossier and the astroturfed media coverage to pump public opinion away from the popular anti war sentiment of the time), Snowdon leaks, twitter leaks, plus various bits of covid narrative direction mediated by intelligence agencies, such as the FBI in the US or the role of E.g., the 77th brigade in the UK, paint a picture of a dispersed intelligence apparatus that does shift narratives and have a dominant, final, say in the anglospheres mood and man on the street opinion.

With that basis influencing me to assume it's more likely than not to be intelligence agencies manipulating opinion. When I see a sudden massive set of Anglo country wide social and cultural changes being implimented and enforced from the top down with manufactured media driven consensus, my default assumption isn't that it's a bottom up phenonomenon driven by academic marxists, economic conditions, racism, people struggling for equality out of true belief in it or whatever, but that the well funded groups of people across the world hegemonic powerstructure who have a track record of doing things like this, and have plausible reasons for doing it, very wwrll might be doing it and I will need very solid evidence to update away from that. When it comes to the culture war, my null hypothesis is the 5 eyes intelligence community probably did it or influenced the start of whatever it is.

and have plausible reasons for doing it

What reasons do intelligence agencies have to promote wokeism and social division?

Edit: Just read your comment below. So you're claiming "the powers that be" are sowing division because if people were not divided into two groups arguing with one another, they would unite and overthrow them?

Yup pretty much, although not necessarily unite in totality. Just a larger populist movement is possible drawing from.all the population than half, and that if its ire is directed at government and property ownership systems instead of the other half of the population then this is something to be avoided at all costs.

I got this in the volunteer-mod queue, and rated it "Neutral" because I think you're posting in good faith.

I do not, however, think that this is especially likely; the Five Eyes are certainly extremely powerful, but I don't think they actually want an Anglosphere that's tearing itself apart. They live here, and if the Anglosphere falls their power goes away.

I can believe in them getting mindkilled by the culture war like anyone else and sticking their hands where they don't belong. I can't believe they're responsible for the whole mess.

The power of the current system ends if populist impulse is directed at it* rather than wokes, fascist right wingers, gays, trannies, conservatives, white people, brown people, jews, immigrants, Boris Johnson, trump, the EU, racism, sexism, transphobia, bigotry, the patriarchy, etc.

*current government and property right systems.

That this strategy is awful and doesn't work very well, and seems to cause more strife than may have been anticipated, doesn't preclude it from being a driving factor.

As one of the very small number of red tribers with a strong classics background, I feel it is my job to look at how history rhymes and what the common thread tells us about the why's and wherefore's.

Fortunately the classical world has lots of recorded examples of republics collapsing due to political polarization. In every case this was rooted in the political factions becoming aligned with differing economic modes; that's why the optimates and populares had a hundred years of escalating violence and the blues and greens rioted in a way that never spiraled into the multiple civil wars of the first century BC.

So, NAFTA and open borders set the stage. The '08 recession is a major catalyst in the story, and, well, that's when the polarization stuff got kicked into overdrive. Then you've got the Obama admin, which was truly incredibly bad at lowering the temperature of the room, and a red tribe that was primed to take blue tribe obliviousness as malice due to economic polarization- that's functionally what the TEA party was. Then enter Trump, who I've always said is just an American Marius- big mouthed, prone to norm busting, hyperpopulist, attached to power, disdainful of the customs of the elite, but at the end of the day his obvious skill at things that are not statesmanship does not transfer to actual governing. The red tribe mostly doesn't understand why Trump is so offensive to the blue tribe, and the blue tribe mostly doesn't understand how the reds can not be offended by him. Then Covid became a scissor scenario.

Now obviously the US isn't ancient Rome, but ancient Rome wasn't any of the myriad Greek city states that did the exact same thing, either.

The Tea Party just always felt like traditional GOP politics to me. And on Trump I think the gop understands why the left hates him and a lot of his appeal is making them lose their mind. A lot of the time it feels to me the left promotes Trump too and gets him into the news. If we were a serious people we wouldn’t play this game. The fact we aren’t a serious people makes me think most people are comfortable and the issues aren’t real economics. If the right wanted to get shit done I think it’s beyond obvious Desantis is a better a choice. If they want to drive libs crazy Trump is the better choice.

It also seems to me a lot of left elites seem disconnect from the real world. A solution to homelessness isn’t fentanyl tent cities but police enforcement and building more housing. They wouldn’t debate what a “women” is or have trans as their main issue. They would be nicer to black people but deep down have official policies with some understanding that a lot of race differences are genetic.

The left with more people in digital industries seems more disconnected than the red tribe with more people in the real world. But compared to your historical example it just feels to me a lot of todays fight is non-serious people on both sides Larping.

I think if you were to conduct a poll of self described left-leaning voters, the trans issue would fall very very low on the priority list. Twitter, the news, and an extremely loud contingent has made the trans conversation appear much larger than it really is.

Why are left-leaning politicians making such a fuss about it then?

We just had an election last fall and I don't remember any campaign materials or speeches from any left-leaning politicians, prominent or otherwise, that made a big deal about trans issues.

They don't make a big deal about them in their public campaign materials because their position on these issues is wildly unpopular -- then they get elected and apply inordinate focus to things that only impact 0.x% of the population.

I'm pretty sure this is worse?

That's the left's biggest advantage. Their politicians don't have to do or say anything. All of the policy changes are pushed by the media and civil service.

Are they? Outside of the more online younger types, I really don't think they do make that much of a fuss about it. Speaking to Britain, where while the tribes are not directly analogous or polarised there has been some spread of the American culture war, most of the Labour party, and certainly Starmer in particular, try not to talk about it at all if they can. Activist types do overemphasise it, but among, say, the median democratic state legislator I don't think it ranks very highly.

The Bud light guy was invited to the white house. That is a full embrace by their leader.

I agree that Biden is unambiguously on the 'pro-trans' side but that doesn't mean it's a high priority.

The trans activists send shock troops basically anywhere there is pushback, and the Democrats will generally speak in favor of it, excuse it (see the tennessee capitol storming). The courts defend it. The schools try to secretly implement it. Large associations like the APA conspire to push it. Its hard to see, other than possibly abetting illegal immigration, a CW issue the DNC prioritizes more highly.

Biden's inviting the low priorities to the White House to show they're low priority?

More comments

You really think the US secretary of health was selected on his merits? People are getting jail time for doing burnouts on rainbow crosswalks, head in the sand won't help you here.

US assistant secretary of health I think you mean. If your argument is that Democrats clearly rank trans issues as a high priority because they gave one sub-cabinet level post to a trans person... that's a rather low bar. Was there an 'affirmative action' element? Maybe, I have no idea (but note that with 24 cabinet secretaries and presumably at least that many assistants as well one assistant post going to a trans person hardly represents a great statistical anomaly), but even if there was it hardly proves much.

It's just an example -- there are plenty more. What about the nuclear energy/panty stealing guy? What about various bathroom bills? Like I say, head in the sand.

More comments

I have a few hypotheses:

1). Politics have become a source of identification in the twenty first century much like church denominations would have in the Christian world, Or philosophy would have in the Greek or Roman world. Thus, conflict between the “tribes” to use Scott’s terminology is much like would have happened between Catholics and Protestants in the reformation. The point wasn’t just the differences, but that this “other” by not being like you, by being a heretic, they are a threat against the good. As evidence, I’d point out things that have little to do with politics being coded for one tribe or the other. For example that blues like coffee shops or indie movies, reds like beer and action movies.

2). Political issues are touching more and more of what used to be the private sphere as state power increases. Almost every decision a person makes in the modern world has some attachment to politics. It’s everywhere, every song on the radio, every movie and TV show, sports, at work, at your kid’s school, and social media. There’s no issue that isn’t ultimately political including the food you eat, the brands you buy, whether or not you recycle, how you talk to people, what kind of religion you practice, you name it, and there’s politics. And once politics becomes that important to how people actually live, it cannot help but be really contentious. I don’t want my six year old learning about pronouns, but politicized education means that unless you’re involved vocally in politics, you can’t stop it. When you’re forced to hide your beliefs from others because they’re not inclusive enough, politics becomes more important to you.

3). The increased economic division between rich and poor makes politics more pressing. The border is a threat to the poor who struggle to make it while watching millions of people pour over the border to compete for their jobs. The hollowing out of good paying jobs from rural areas has made life harder for rural areas.

Political issues are touching more and more of what used to be the private sphere as state power increases. Almost every decision a person makes in the modern world has some attachment to politics. It’s everywhere, every song on the radio, every movie and TV show, sports, at work, at your kid’s school, and social media. There’s no issue that isn’t ultimately political including the food you eat, the brands you buy, whether or not you recycle, how you talk to people, what kind of religion you practice, you name it, and there’s politics.

I think that this one is downstream of whatever the real problem is. People turning toxic and inserting politics into everything seems to me like the symptom, not the disease. It's definitely a problem though.

I’m sort of libertarian adjacent, so my thinking is that it’s because of state power being able to reach into everything in ways that tyrants of 100 years ago could only dream of. Through the civil rights act and liability issues stemming from them, the state can force your boss (for fear of lawsuits) to insert himself into what used to be private matters between employees. You’re an ass if you’re touching women on the ass, or deliberately antagonizing LGBT people, or using the N-word as a descriptive term. But such things should be able to be handled by those involved. I’m perfectly capable, as a woman, of telling you to cut it out. I think any functioning adult should be able to politely but firmly tell the person to stop being an ass.

There’s also the technology. It used to be (pre-cellphone) that unless someone in power happened to overhear the conversation or a tattletale did, it was perfectly reasonable to ignore it. Nobody could find out what you really think about and issue unless they heard it themselves or someone tattled. Internet, cameras, and social media have changed the game, and effectively collapsed the private sphere (unless you take great pains to lock down everything and only talk freely among trusted people) meaning that now any powerful person in your life can freely judge your opinions and words even if they weren’t said to that person or anyone who knew that person. I can watch you on camera and see (and sometimes hear) if you’re doing things that indicate crime-think.

All of this power, imo turns politics into a toxic stew. When the state can dictate the ethnic and gender ratios of your staff, when they can determine if you’re doing enough to not be liable for a “toxic work environment”, and can determine which groups are more worthy of protection, this makes politics much more high stakes. And I think the same is true of the regulations around safety and health and quality and so on. When a state becomes powerful enough, everything becomes political because you can use a powerful state to get your way in whatever form that takes. The government can force educators to teach a certain way and keep secrets from parents and so on, and thus angry parents yell at the school board. It’s now politically charged.

To me, the way to depolarize it is to go back to the antiquated notion that the government is not supposed to be your parents. It’s not supposed to protect your feelings or baby proof your environment. It’s not supposed to enforce quotas or workplace behaviors. And barring really catastrophic danger, I don’t think the government should be heavily involved in safety issues. And once the government stops regulating and enforcing such things, I think the temperature on political debates goes back down. If the state isn’t going to make your business liable for every word your employees say and maybe not having enough trainings, then I don’t think it’s going to be a big deal.

To me, the way to depolarize it is to go back to the antiquated notion that the government is not supposed to be your parents. It’s not supposed to protect your feelings or baby proof your environment. It’s not supposed to enforce quotas or workplace behaviors. And barring really catastrophic danger, I don’t think the government should be heavily involved in safety issues.

I don't know if this would fix it, but damn I would love to see this. I really resent that people are trying to turn the government into my mom. Yes, I don't necessarily make the best choices (though I obviously try). But they're mine, dammit. That's the whole point of being an adult. Stop trying to get the government involved. It almost certainly doesn't know better than me, and even if it did, it's infantilizing and insulting.

You want the core fundamental concept? It's religious morality vs oversocialized morality.

The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people. [2]

Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society’s expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.

I'm not sure why it's "versus" religious morality. Isn't Christian morality pretty open about nobody measuring up?

Yeah, christian morality and wokism are on the same side here. Their opposite would for example be old-school liberalism, where thoughts and speech cannot be ‘unclean’ or ‘hateful’. Christians and wokes agree on the necessity of controlling all thoughts towards their non-hateful, radically egalitarian vision and oppose free speech.

Yes, that's the difference. In Christian theology, if you screw up, it's (mostly) not a big deal because Jesus. Besides, God's justice will be realized in the end, so you can sleep easy knowing that the burden of fixing all the world's problems isn't on you.

But I don't think Christianity considers it not a big deal in itself (hence hell), it's just able to be accepted because of Christ.

hell is not justice. infinite punishment for finite wrongdoing can not be just. no one should be sleeping easy because they think people they don't like are going to hell.

Infinite punishment for offenses against an infinite God.

If anything, the punishment of hell would fall short, due to different classes of infinity? (I think, I'm not that knowledgeable about infinites.)

Not all Christian denominations believe in an eternal hell, though admittedly most of the denominations that don't are heterodox compared to mainstream Christianity i.e. the Mormons.

everyone should go to heaven. we should have been born in heaven.

in reality, i don't have a good reason to believe that i am going anywhere except the grave when i die. i think this afterlife stuff is wishful thinking at best, but cynically its deceitful manipulation.

I'm not convinced that Team Left and Team Right do, in fact, get along in person and simply fight online. I suspect that a significant amount of online toxicity bleeds into meat-space interactions, particularly as the unwritten rule of "Leave politics and religion out of your professional interactions" gets more and more abandoned. I think there's some polling data that shows that political differences are increasingly a dealbreaker when it comes to dating; I can't find it at the moment, though.

With regards to the core question, I think there's a few things going on. My personal theory is that with the end of the Cold War, America was no longer faced with an external threat to fight, and so ended up expending its energy on fighting each other. Mix that in with the decline of Protestant Christianity as a unifying factor and the rise of the Internet amplifying differences and killing common culture, and we end up with the situation we're in now.

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