site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30730 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The people most responsible for making America great in the first place are some of the wokest people on the planet. The backbone of the country, the people whose grandparents went to a mainline protestant church, are cheering on their own extinction.

Clearly the woke people you are talking about are not the people who made America great, because they weren't born. So you must mean said grandparents, who weren't woke. These are not the same people.... stop making Hlynka have a point. No matter how many "Son also rises" type studies the left can gin up, America is the land of "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations". Furthermore, failsons are known everywhere. People are not their parents.

I don't understand what a conservative America is supposed to look like.

Who are the backbone of this theoretical new nation? White evangelicals? Based Hispanics/Indians/African immigrants? Because that's not "taking our country back". That's moving in a new and different direction that will be a lot lower trust, lower IQ, and more racially balkanized than what we had in the past. Brazil is probably the best modern comparison.

I don't have any answers here either. I suppose I'd rather have Brazil than whatever we get if we let progressives run things for another 30 years, but there really is no going back. The golden age is dead. Immigration didn't kill it either. The rot came from within.

Edit: The comment below from Hoffmeister25 partially answers my question

And by assimilation, I’m talking about, among other things, marrying into the families who have ancestral ties to the founding of this nation, such that the children and especially grandchildren of these couplings would be visually near-indistinguishable from the historical population of the country, and would feel a genuine blood connection to the ancestral stock that built this nation. This could, in time, create a truly glorious race, syncretizing the best of the Asian world while remaining firmly rooted in, and continuous with, the greatest civilization of the last millennium.

I think this is a noble goal. With much lower immigration for a few decades (like we had from roughly 1920-1970) we could create a strong, singular culture. But first we need to fix our elite. Assimilation in the current context just means taking conservative immigrants and making them into wokists.

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