site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   38487 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 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.

Thanks for the links, one important point though is that this shouldn't matter for Denmark to not want to become Indian, Chinese, or MENAPT. I don't care if the Chinese have positive tax contributions and lower criminal behavior than Danes, I don't want Denmark to become Chinese. Opponents of immigration shouldn't fall into the trap of "it's not about race, it's about crime and tax dollars". That didn't work in the US, it's not going to work in Denmark. It is about race.

For you, sure. But it might not be for others - such as me - since among other things, I don't think I'm the same race as you.

So you would be fine with Denmark becoming significantly or even majority Chinese if it meant lower crime and higher tax income? I ask because so many conservatives try hard to convince themselves that it's not about race when they oppose illegal immigration, but they are just in denial.

I at least wouldn't have any problem with that in theory. I don’t see the point of trying to freeze the ethnic map of the world at any particular point in time, as these things are always in flux. In practice, however, the things I do care about (cultural practices, crime rates, behavior) are so highly correlated with national origin that the simplest approach is to screen by background rather than thoroughly vet every individual immigrant to get only those that will assimilate well.

When I have visited Scandinavia in the past, the thing that annoyed me about immigrants there wasn't that they were nonwhite, it was that many did not seem to speak the local language, and I came close to berating several shopkeepers in my broken Swedish for their lack of respect towards their new home.

Cultural homogenization or breakdown of law and order are much worse outcomes in my eyes than racial replacement, and to the extent that they can be disambiguated (and perhaps they can't, this a point of disagreement), I don’t particularly care about the latter.

I don’t see the point of trying to freeze the ethnic map of the world at any particular point in time, as these things are always in flux.

I completely agree with that, but that is also the point I am trying to get across to OP. This isn't really about crime or taxes, it's about ethnogenesis, which is monumentally more important than any of those issues.

I also don't see value in trying to freeze the ethnic map of the world, but being conscious of its direction is of extreme importance, and hiding those anxieties behind complaints about crime or taxes is the road to failure. Ideally, you would rationally and intelligently influence the ethnic map of the world to achieve some desirable outcomes.

I came close to berating several shopkeepers in my broken Swedish for their lack of respect towards their new home.

I'm not trying to be snarky when I say that this is just a lack of cultural sensitivity on your part. If you put a mouse in a barn do you berate it for not acting like a horse? They are not Swedish and they never will be, you either accept that along with the concurrent changes in Swedish language and culture or you get serious about the problem of ethnogenesis.

Could you clarify what you mean by "ethnogenesis"? You don't seem to be using the standard definition.

I'm not trying to be snarky when I say that this is just a lack of cultural sensitivity on your part. If you put a mouse in a barn do you berate it for not acting like a horse? They are not Swedish and they never will be, you either accept that along with the concurrent changes in Swedish language and culture or you get serious about the problem of ethnogenesis.

Do you think Turks, Syrians and the like are just unable to learn Swedish?

I mean race formation, checking the definition of "ethnogenesis" I see:

the formation and development of an ethnic group

Which is the sense in which I am using the term, by saying that this is far more important than secondary issues like taxes. If a Swede doesn't want his ethnic identity to become half Middle-Eastern, he shouldn't have to voice his objections in terms of some accountant analyzing a tax ledger.

Based on the last paragraph of this post perhaps you might allow me to pose a question.

I am an American citizen (Caucasian, more or less, if it matters, with some Native American ancestry) living in Japan, my home now over two decades. I speak the language passably well though my kanji isn't what it should be (even recently on this forum I goofed a very basic term, and, as one might expect, was gently corrected). Though I am not in a service job, I am public-facing in that I stand in front of adult students every day. Would you argue that I shouldn't make efforts to learn Japanese, or that my learning of Japanese should be done only as a means of communication, and not as one of a larger set of strategies to integrate (to whatever degree) into Japanese culture?

You may suggest that I am "not Japanese and never will be" and that is of course not an unpopular perspective (particularly, even especially here). But surely the old saw about when in Rome carries some water in your mind? It's possible I'm misunderstanding you.

You are inclined to learn Japanese and respect the local culture, my point is it's not reasonable to expect that same behavior from masses of third world economic migrants. If a Japanese person wanted to maintain Japanese culture, it would be a bad idea to import masses of people who are unlike the Japanese and expect they will adopt the "when in Rome" mentality that you have. Culture is more dynamic than people and their personalities, it's more likely the culture is going to change than a Paki is going to start acting like a Swede.

If mases of Turks or Syrians moved to Japan, how many Japanese people would say "oh well, being Japanese is an idea that has nothing to do with ethnicity so these are now fellow Japanese people"?

I'll trust your judgement on that question, but why would their response be so different than the Swede who feels compelled to voice his objection by couching it in terms of taxes?

A friend of mine has a daughter, raised her here though my friend and her husband are from the US and both blue-eyed and white--their daughter is also. But the girl, because of her upbringing, can, and does, move as fluently through Japanese culture as her classmates. She is also perfectly, natively fluent in English. It's a marvel to see her slip in and out of these versions of herself.

In Nihonjinron scholarship (if that's the word to use) there have been many efforts at defining "Japaneseness." Some suggest both parents need to be ethnically Japanese. Because Japanese culture is so much a part of functioning here, however (that's a whole can of worms), others suggest that to be Japanese one has to be fluent in the language and preferably born in Japan.

That, too, sometimes doesn't matter. Returnee students who may have spent a few years abroad (especially if in early youth) are routinely told, on return, that because of some alteration in attitude, dress, or ineffable behavioral trait, they're "not really Japanese," as if their Japaneseness has been stripped from them.

The dimensions of the definition become more and more Procrustean as one goes on, as you might expect.

Eventually the concept "I know a Japanese when I see one" becomes the answer if the subject is pressed--and of course one cannot press the subject very far, for highlighting disagreement.or inconsistency in this way would be poor manners, itself "un-Japanese."

Older people might not consider the girl in my example above as ever having any chance of being Japanese, any more than a Zainichi Korean or third-generation Chinese. It isn't hard to find people using the term "Japanese blood" when the topic comes up. One quickly realizes nationality isn't the issue, or even culture, or language--or even biology (though there is of course that rather infamous book arguing the Japanese person's brain is structurally different from, well, from all the rest of us.)

I have the distinct sense that all this evaporates if you boil it down enough and you'll be left with steam, and, eventually an empty pot.

To address your question, there seems to be no real movement here (with a non-Japanese presence of around 2%) to shepherd anyone into the Japanese fold. Though I am considered uchi (内) or "one of the group/family/elect" in certain contexts here, remove one layer and I am again soto (外) or an outsider. But I haven't ever considered attempting applying for Japanese nationality.

I'd a fairly extreme (if benign) racist acquaintance some years ago who liked Japan and the Japanese fine because of the sense of clear delineation he felt here.

The LLM disagrees with me as well, and for basically the same reasons: it's been trained to think that.

Just leave the conversation if all you are going to say is a snarky comment.

Well, yeah. You have no real argument despite massive evidence being weighed against your position. It’s just neurotic appeals to emotion, constantly.

"Being English has nothing to do with ethnicity", yes I would say that is the perspective of someone who has been brainwashed. How do you think such a prevailing opinion has come to be? Do you think if the culture were different then the public would have a different opinion?

Let's take this story from a few days ago: Anglo-Saxons aren’t real, Cambridge tells students in effort to fight ‘nationalism’

Cambridge is teaching students that Anglo-Saxons did not exist as a distinct ethnic group as part of efforts to undermine “myths of nationalism”...

Its teaching aims to “dismantle the basis of myths of nationalism” by explaining that the Anglo-Saxons were not a distinct ethnic group, according to information from the department.

The department’s approach also aims to show that there were never “coherent” Scottish, Irish and Welsh ethnic identities with ancient roots.

The increased focus on anti-racism comes amid a broader debate over the continued use of terms like “Anglo-Saxon”, with some in academia alleging that the ethnonym is used to support “racist” ideas of a native English identity.

Information provided by the Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic (ASNC) explains its approach to teaching, stating: “Several of the elements discussed above have been expanded to make ASNC teaching more anti-racist.

“One concern has been to address recent concerns over use of the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ and its perceived connection to ethnic/racial English identity.

“Other aspects of ASNC’s historical modules approach race and ethnicity with reference to the Scandinavian settlement that began in the ninth century.

“In general, ASNC teaching seeks to dismantle the basis of myths of nationalism - that there ever was a ‘British’, ‘English’, ‘Scottish’, ‘Welsh’ or ‘Irish’ people with a coherent and ancient ethnic identity - by showing students just how constructed and contingent these identities are and always have been.”

...

However, the term Anglo-Saxon has recently become embroiled in controversy, with some academics claiming that the term Anglo-Saxon has been used by racists – particularly in the US – to support the idea of an ancient white English identity, and should therefore be dropped.

Cambridge teaching its students that there are no English, Scottish, Irish, or Welsh ethnic identities could be considered brainwashing or education depending on your perspective. But whatever term you choose, the fact remains is that public opinion is indeed trained by these institutions.

These students, as learning agents, are being trained to believe that "being English has nothing to do with ethnicity", which is a complete lie from any reasonable perspective that would acknowledge the biological reality of an English ethnic identity. LLMs are fine-tuned by similar people with similar methods and for similar motives.

If these cultures and institutions rallied around a real history of English ethnic heritage which recognizes the Anglo-Saxons, public opinion would be very different, and public opinion was different when the narrative described in that article was the popular narrative.

The LLM disagrees with me as well, and for basically the same reasons: it's been trained to think that.

Yes, yes, we're all brainwashed

"Being English has nothing to do with ethnicity", yes I would say that is the perspective of someone who has been brainwashed.

Don't call people brainwashed. The user you responded to baited you, and you took the bait. And worse, you trained them that the snarky response is what gets you to actually make an effort and respond.

Effort responses for effort posts. Mod reports for low effort snark.

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