site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31308 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm pretty sure I remember seeing a graph which showed the breakdown of political affiliations of all employees at all the major news media organisations. (IIRC Fox News was one of the most right-leaning ones but still substantially Democrat.)

But I can't find it again for the life of me on Google or DuckDuckGo, nor the underlying data. Does anyone have this?

All I've found so far:

  • Graph of tech company employee donations - visually looks like the right sort of thing but wrong industry.

  • Breakdown of news hosts registered party affiliations (pretty balanced, Fox is overwhelmingly Republican)

  • OpenSecrets breakdown of Fox employee donations (100% Democrat, but small sample size)

  • Survey of journalist self-reported party affiliation (overwhelmingly independent or Democrat.)

It's neither here nor there, but it's kind of crazy that your fourth link cites an increase of female journalists from 33% to 37.5% in 2013, while today 53.4% are female. It's also funny to read

However, women still represent only slightly more than one-third of all full-time journalists working for the U.S. news media, as has been true since the early 1980s. This trend persists despite the fact that more women than ever are graduating from journalism schools.

with the hindsight knowledge that this was the start of huge change in the gender makeup of reporters.

On the other hand, 2/3 of graduates with a degree in journalism or mass communication were women in 2017. If people's careers are 40 years long, then we'd expect the percent of women in journalism to change by (2/3 - 1/3) / 40 = 0.8% per year, which is 4 times smaller than the 3.5% change that was actually observed.

This line of reasoning also makes the change from 33% to 53.4% in 10 years seem crazy -- that's an increase of 2% every year, which seems like it shouldn't be possible looking at graduation disparities, and factoring in how slowly people more into/out of a field. I feel like this necessitates an exodus of (disproportionately) men out of reporting.

One thing that probably factors in that is difficult to gauge is the credentialism. Prior to the 21st century, you didn't need a journalism degree to get a job as a journalist. If you could write well enough and fast enough, and you managed to impress an editor or two, you didn't even need to have finished school. And then the internet started picking up steam, and a lot of guys who would have gone on to magazine journalism simply started writing a blog. And it was overwhelmingly men who did this.

Your 4th option is the one I recall seeing cited multiple times over the years.

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