site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33485 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I am, along with others it seems, confused by this post.

I think anti-bullying campaigns have gone too far and now are a net negative over the 1950s system. But it makes little sense to talk about nerds/jocks in this context. That is, mostly, a false artifact of Hollywood culture. Almost all the best jocks are also super smart. The CEO of Goldman played Rugby in college. Zuckerberg was the captain of his fencing team, and now has apparently taken a keen interest in training in Jiu-jitsu.

Almost all the best jocks are also super smart.

There's a lot of jocks who aren't the best.

They also tend to fare poorly with the ladies. No one was itching to go on dates with backup left guard "Stumper" at my high school.

Agreed on the general point, but in no way is Zuckerberg a jock.

Agreed regarding Zuck, but I think he highlights something that seems true from personal experience - discrete categories of teens, to the extent that they exist, aren't anything like the 80s movie tropes. I don't know if they ever were, but by the time I was a teenager a couple decades ago, quite a few athletes were also smart kids that played Halo and had no real qualms about playing with the stereotypical nerds. Sure, there were cliques and I assume that's a permanent part of human social structure, but the overlap between jocks and nerds was sufficiently significant that those weren't really the fault lines. The outgroup were the actual losers - the guys that seemed like they wouldn't even get out of high school and definitely weren't going to have real careers and successful lives.

Growing up, I've always associated the bully with the fat, loud guy who sucks at sports and has a bad social etiquette and rep with the teachers, not really desired by his female classmates. He thinks he can assert his dominance by picking on the weaker guy. But the jocks who are already desirable don't have to assert their dominance, they already know their worth and so does everyone. This happened a lot with this particular nerdy kid in my class who was sometimes chatty but was seen as scum by most girls in our class. The bullying he'd faced was pretty standard, being shoved and kicked around, not the extreme stuff like being stripped or getting shitty swirlys. He had a very bad temper though. Inevitably, the day came when he was truly pushed off the edge and went completely feral with no care in the world for the consequences, but fortunately he was tamed before he could get that far. Interestingly enough, this didn't raise his status. He was still seen as scum who (ironically) starts trouble, but worse: he was a feral scum who's tasted blood now, and therefore shouldn't be given the reason to do so again (read: can't be messed with without a bloody nose in return anymore). Can't say he wasn't eager to embrace this new reputation though.

I think the difference is less the interests (although they tend to cluster) and more as a social status. You’re not a nerd just because you collect things or watch anime or whatever. You’re a nerd because you are weak, unaccomplished, socially awkward, and clearly unable to fix those problems. In other words, a loser. Jocks aren’t really jocks because they like sports, it’s simply that they are stronger, more accomplished, sociable, and generally able to handle their lives.

Zuckerberg was the captain of his fencing team

I am also confused by the post, but feel compelled to point out that fencing is ultra-nerdy since at least the 90s IME -- probably since they stopped using real swords, but IDKAT.

They don’t use swords?

Not ones that can cut you

I get that. I still assumes it was real swords but dull.

Not a given, historically...

They use what are essentially bendy metal poles. The blades aren't rigid, and they're not even blades, since they don't have a cutting edge. Instead, there's a sensor at the tip that sends an electrical signal when it hits an opponent.

I in no way am a fencing expert. But I watched the Olympic event in 2020 and they seemed pretty athletic.

Sure, but if you talk to any of them (again IME, I'm sure some fencers are total chads) you will find that they are super-nerds.

If a nerd can beat you up, is he still a nerd?

Scott's classical definition of a nerd (which you may not endorse) was "high intelligence + poor social skills". There's no reason you couldn't have those two traits and also be physically strong or handy in a fight. I think a lot of /fit/izens meet this description.

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