site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31722 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 24, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I’ve often wondered if colonization was the ticket in the last several hundred years as a sort of purpose for at least some men. Go over the hill with a bunch of guys, build a new settlement and establish and build infrastructure and institutions that make the project self-sustaining. Such a purpose would be quite worthy, especially if it’s difficult and dangerous.

Yes, and it probably reduced the status anxiety of the colonists. A low-status man in England could go to India and be higher status than the natives at least.

This is one reason why 20th century colonialism is viewed so negatively even though it demonstrably improved standards of living in the colonized places. You can take a man's possessions, but steal his status and you have an enemy for life.

There weren't many low status men going to India except sailors and soldiers. Low status men can still join the army or navy today if they want an easy path.

But you are discounting the effect of knowing, every second of every day, that you are so much more advanced and better off - indeed so much better (in the eyes of the beholder) - than everyone else around you that you can treat them like pets or children. I doubt many men were enlisting specifically for a feeling of superiority, but being treated like a king is quite nice.

Colonization also just killed off a ton of men. British colonial troops died of disease in absurd numbers when posted anywhere south of France. Even without fighting any battles, colonialism drained off thousands of useless or aimless men every year.

It also provided a route to riches and fame for the lucky few. It's one of those high-risk high-reward strategies that down on their luck men have always gravitated towards throughout history. And honestly, it's a great trade for both society and those men, since they typically don't have much to offer otherwise.

Nowadays the only real high-risk high-reward strategy for ambitious men is to try and found a company, but that selects for such high IQ and conscientiousness that it's not a real strategy for any but the top percentage of the distribution.

What about gambling?

That works too, but society at large doesn't reward the successful gambler the same way they would reward the successful colonialist.

Before that it was the military, hunting mamoths and other ventures. Not all young men are going to be pacified. Some are going to get organized and start an adventure. It may be selling drugs, it may be joining a radical political movement or some other high risk high reward strategy. Crime is often portrayed as being caused by poverty when in reality a lot of crime isn't commited in order to pay for food and rent, it is committed for status. There is no dignity or way to meet attractive women for a loser guy. Join a gang and there is a risk of death and prison but also a chance of meeting hot women.

Join a gang and there is a risk of death and prison but also a chance of meeting hot women.

You can meet hot women by getting a decent job and going to bars. The allure of gangs is a brotherhood, fighting alongside men who will die to protect you, and vice versa. Even if the gangster life is often brutal, it's a far more real type of connection and community than the mainstream modern world offers.

I think what you’re forgetting is that gang recruits are teenaged boys who see an immediate route to status, money, and success with the opposite sex. This isn’t the fifties- no teenaged girls are dreaming about marrying engineers(and the sorts of boys who are recruited into gangs are not going to become engineers anyways). Gangbanging successfully is high status among these lads peers, including their opposite sex peers, and that’s what’s important for the discussion.

You can meet hot women by getting a decent job and going to bars.

I don't think this is a refutation. The existence of a more optimal approach to an end doesn't rule out the possibility that other more risky approaches are motivated by the same end.

Sure you can get a good job to get women instead of risking prison, but you might not have thought it through!

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