site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30072 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 21, 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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In Scandinavia we are fairly successful in forced skin in the game by using the draft. The smartest, strongest and healthiest are the ones who get drafted. People from the higher echelons of society are more likely to be conscripted and therefore have more skin in the game.

I fundamentally believe that immigration policy would have been completely different if people who voted for diversity had the diversity in their neighbourhood. Their ideological binds wouldn't apply when it is their property. Suburbs were a terrible mistake in the US as it allowed cities to deteriorate without in impacting the elite. The problemen wouldn't have arrisen from the first place as they would have kept things from getting out of hand. Migration is only fun when it is happening to someone else's area.

The corrent eltie completely lack a sense of duty and nobless oblige. This can't be forced, it comes as the result of hard times. The US needs a proper crisis to solve the corruption within its elite.

Suburbs were a terrible mistake in the US as it allowed cities to deteriorate without in impacting the elite.

And then for no reason at all, all the 'elite' moved to the suburbs.

I fundamentally believe that immigration policy would have been completely different if people who voted for diversity had the diversity in their neighbourhood.

This is why suburbs exist. The federal government and courts moved to address equity, the desires or votes of the majority mattered little. The resulting diversity motivated those that could, to move to the suburbs.

I understand your experience in Scandinavia is only recently enabling some to understand a reality that many in the US have known all their lives.

There is a big difference between Sweden and the US. We are far less diverse and the debate has already swung. Diversity is less popular now than 10 years ago and the country is noticeably less woke than it was around the peak in 2015. We have a coalition in government that ran on a platform of restricting migration.

The problems existed 20 years ago but didn't impact the middle class. When it was upper middle class kids getting robbed by immigrant gangs the public debate made a radical switch. In the US there is far more non white crime yet the american middle class seems comfortable with diversity from their suburbs.

In the US there is far more non white crime yet the american middle class seems comfortable with diversity from their suburbs.

Here in the US suburbs do insulate their inhabitants from the realities of urban diversity, in combination with beliefs in progressive orthodoxys, is comforting.

Of course there are many in suburbs who are uncomfortable or oppose the seemingly open border, or would prefer a return to tough on crime policing, or involuntary commitment for a larger cohort of the mentally ill. The silent majority has leadership issues and has been splintered by many divisive topics.

I don't think noblesse oblige comes from hard times, I think it comes from a combination of culture, tradition, education, and honesty about privilege. The nobles of yore were rich and wealthy because

  1. Their parents were rich and wealthy. Therefore their parents could educate them and teach them about how to properly handle being rich and wealthy with the proper composure and respect for each person in their position.

  2. They happened to be lucky enough to be born into said family. This makes it clear that their position is one inherited, not earned by their own efforts.

  3. The peasants underneath them work hard and pay taxes to them. This makes it clear where the wealth is coming from: the efforts of the peasants under them. Of course the nobles did their own estate management and politics and whatnot, but the core production and farming is done by the peasants and with no underling peasants the noble has no income.

Further, the peasant noble relationship is less distributed. You don't have millions of peasants paying taxes which are combined and then divied up among a bunch of nobles, each noble family is in charge of specific peasants. If those peasants thrive, the noble thrives. If the peasants suffer, (at least economically) the noble suffers. You can't tax what isn't there. These together create an environment in which noblesse oblige can thrive. A Lord which makes good decisions will simultaneously benefit their peasants and themself. A Lord which makes bad decisions will have poor peasants and thus make themselves poor. A Lord which makes very bad decisions will have suffering peasants who have a very specific target for their anger and can rebel against the Lord specifically, rather than trying to overthrow the entire kingdom which consists of a mixture of good and bad elites.

Modern elites rise and fall in power and influence in a massively distributed system in which increasing your ability to capture larger slices of the existing pie dominates over trying to tend your own garden and increase the size of the pie. The ability to charisma and politick your way up the ranks causes new elites to rise higher than they deserve, while the competent value creators end up in middle management. And the high mobility across space means that terrible mistakes are met not with rebellion and death, but with an escape to a new job with a blank slate reputation, or a cushy golden parachute retirement.

I don't see how hard times would change this, there were both good times and hard times in the past, and noblesse oblige was present through both, though was universal in neither. It's the skin in the game by which peasants and elites shared good times and bad times that enabled and incentivized noblesse oblige at all.

Yeah, I get the impression that @functor’s understanding fits a later development. As militaries modernized, warrior aristocrats started to have a much harder time standing out, so justifying their social role got more important. By the end of WWI, their reputation for martial dominance was bleeding out in the mud. The hard times of modern warfare were not good fuel for noblesse oblige.

The origin of the concept of noblesse oblige can easily be found in the phrase itself i.e. nobility, hereditary privilege that you are born into i.e. something that you didn't earn through your own efforts and were never expected to, and which thus obliges you to follow certain norms.

if people who voted for diversity had the diversity in their neighbourhood.

They do. The most pro-diversity areas are urban areas with lots of younger college grads, not suburbs.

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