site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29336 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I have not been particularly impressed on the occasions that Hanania has been linked.

That said, trying to cancel a guy who already says the quiet part out loud is a bit silly. Is that really more extreme than what he normally says?

My (probably terrible) instinct is that he can ignore it, but I also don’t know how much of his money comes from non-substack sources. Publishing and speaking is a weird market.

Disagree with below - it's very different from what he usually says. Discussing your emotional distaste for LGBTs analytically or unemotionally discussing the lower mean IQ of blacks while still ultimately promoting democracy and race-blind meritocracy, arguing the MSM is still better than the right-wing media and talking about how jews are universally successful due to their genes, claiming that veganism is a strong moral position even if he still disagrees with it - is very far from denouncing the "ugly, secular and barren White self-hating and Jewish elite" and promoting the Turner Diaries. e.g. Doglatine wouldn't have claimed Hanania was a very interesting writer if he was still doing the second.

I also think Hanania is more correct now than he was ten years ago, and suspect he has, to a significant extent, actually changed his mind (compare to Karlin's more limited moves in that direction). Although obviously he's still going to strategically conceal some ideas that are too distasteful.

I have not been particularly impressed on the occasions that Hanania has been linked.

If you are very right-wing, he might be a breath of fresh air to see support for stronger right-wing ideas (IQ and merit and correlation with race, crime) coexist with lambasting of weaker right-wing ideas (universal anti-immigration, populism, ...).

I don’t think anti-immigration is a weak idea. I’m personally okay with a small level of immigration but I can understand why one doesn’t want the population to artificially change.

For the most part it's not that far from what he normally says. Some differences are that, for example, as far as I know he doesn't bring up the "Jewish elite" under his birth name. I might have missed him referring to it somewhere, though. Also, when he writes under his birth name he generally has a more equivocational tone than he does in these quotes. These quotes are more blunt.

Did he say anything about Jews other than the 'barren white and Jewish elite' thing when talking about Sarah Palin?

Because he is half Ashkenazi and has married a Jewish woman. They have only one child together, of course.

Hanania isn’t Jewish, he’s a Palestinian Christian.

I thought his mother was Jewish, but I must have imagined that as I can't find anything online about her.

He looks very Jewish, but that isn’t uncommon for Levantine Arabs, obviously.

Well yeah, antisemitism is something that the mainstream is absolutely unwilling to forgive even if they look the other way on disguised racism a lot. He’s not an idiot:

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