site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   2730 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for July 7, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I somewhat disagree. I find the consumers of "high culture" to be about as boring as the consumers of "low culture" and within the cultural upper middle class I find the consumers of low culture more interesting, at least they made a choice to do something they enjoy. Nerds are of course a whole other matter.

More to the point though I find "consumers" uninteresting. Unless you're producing something, you're probably about as interesting as a snail.

Disagree there.

There are vanishingly few producers of culture in the world; and many many hobbyists. If you are after that set you better be lucky or good.

What you call "culture"? There are heaps of books written every year. There are hundreds of movies made. Thousands of musicians perform old and new music daily, thousands of bands and individual singers perform and release albums. Painters paint and sculptors sculpt, all the time. I don't think there is a person in existence who even knows about single percents of all culture produced, let alone trying to consume and appreciate all of it. Can we really define this enormous torrent of information as "vanishingly few"? Or do we only include a tiny sliver of it into "culture" - and if so, what exactly is included?

Depends how broad you are being.

Definitionally, we all contribute the greater culture; but in this context I would say an audience is required and specifically that that audience influence what culture is produced in the future.

Eg, GRRM? Producing Culture. Christopher Rowley? Not producing culture. Osamu Tezuka? Culture. Deen? No culture.

Audience measuring is a tricky business. Justin Bieber probably has much bigger audience than Marcel Proust. But if we measure by audience, there are millions upon millions of people spending billions of dollars on cultural products made by thousands upon thousands of producers. Again, "vanishingly few" does not agree with that.

I don't really care if you're a professional or a hobbyist, hobbyist frequently have more interesting things to say anyway.

I don't really care if what you're producing is culture either. I prefer to hear about your new sales plan to what it was like at the Met. Consumption is uninteresting, people who define themselves by consumption are uninteresting, people who define themselves by consumption they engage in for (mostly) performative reasons are the epitome of uninteresting.

Disagree again then.

If the most interesting thing about you is a 'sales plan', you aren't interesting. Most work is brain dead easy because most people aren't in the top percent, by definition. There is usually nothing there of interest or of value; unless you are in the arts or the sciences. I'd much rather talk about something other than the rote and routine drudgery people have to do to not die. Almost anything other than that, really.

He said "producers" not "the top 1% of producers", so I don't see why hobbyists shouldn't count.

And if for whatever reason you want to stand by the distinction, his point that they're more interesting still stands.

within the cultural upper middle class I find the consumers of low culture more interesting

There are a ton of PMC dudes from perfectly decent upper (middle) class backgrounds who just watch basketball, smoke weed and play GTA (etc) in their free time, I don’t think this is really uncommon.

It isn't, those are just on average more interesting than the one that consume "high culture". If I have to hear from one more person who "went to a really intimate and casual concert where they sat on the floor right by the performers" then just fucking shoot me.

I don't care about what you experienced at the museum or concert or whatever, because you didn't either. People who engage in performative hobbies are boring as hell, regardless of whether that is culture, hiking, wine tasting, marlin fishing, traveling etc. It's not that these are by definition soulless activities it's that they attract empty people like moth to the flame.

Few people play GTA and watch basketball for status (although these people exist, I've met them) which makes it preferable for me to hang out with them rather than the "refined" crowd, even if the latter occasionally pay me to engage in my hobby.

Ultimately of course you want to hang out with nice, interesting people; it's just that I don't find consuming high culture an indicator for any of that, it's a mild red flag.

People hike for status?

Absolutely, not as much for thru-hiking but that happens as well. It's kind of the same as traveling.

A lot of hiking is not for status though and perhaps it shouldn't have been on the list, it feels a bit borderline. I originally included hunting as well and it's similar. There are people (primarily city) people that hunt mostly for status but the majority of hunters just hunt in their area, don't have access to some exclusive hunting lodge and they don't really care to tell anyone about it.

In a sense it's similar to golf. Many people play it for fun but in some circles it's an advantage to socially to do so, which means that some people will do it for social status.

I don't know about hiking in particular but there's a conformity to a lot of these activities that at the most charitable are reflective of status and at the least charitable are indicative of pretense. A reasonable rule of thumb is whether a local could do it cheaply, an outsider couldn't do it without paying, and the modest locals might arbitrage their resource to the wealthy outsiders. The status anxious locals save up to imitate being a wealthy outsider, often somewhere else, and the wealthy outsider is already partially imitating the modest authenticity of a locale. It wasn't a PMC careerist who came up with fishing, horse riding, making wine or any of the other stuff that is typically for toffs and peasants, but PMC careerists do come up with sales plans and can probably demonstrate a level of critical insight into that activity that is potentially more interesting than recycling what they've been told about a wine's terroir.

I think a lot of the people haunting museums and art galleries couldn't care less and are doing it for the clout, or at least because it's expected of them.

Not all, but a large fraction.

I don’t think so, most of the people in regular galleries (as in exhibition spaces rather than sale spaces, usually) and museums are retirees who have tons of free time, also watch TV / do gardening / look after the grandkids but then maybe visit a museum or gallery once or twice a week. Art scene for living artists in London/NYC/other big art cities is young rich people living off their parents (since working in the arts doesn’t pay unless you’re in the 99.9th percentile of luck/success) but these are themselves usually fine, too often with minor-major substance abuse issues but overall typically more interesting than their peers or siblings who go into consulting or law or finance.

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