site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28473 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I do wonder if many white Americans might start trying to establish some sort of Native American identity ala Elizabeth Warren. The collapse in white identification in the U.S. census from 2010->2020 shows that this process might already have started, as people realize a need to have some plausible other race to avoid the worst discrimination. Native American would be the best choice if you could get it - as it seems to be on top of the dejure privilege hierarchy right now.

Apparently, Native American tribal membership often goes back to registers made by the U.S. government in the 1800s. If your ancestors are on that list, you're in. If not, you're out. But the lists were never that accurate and many people were left out who shouldn't have been. Add 150 years, and we have the curious case of 90% white tribe members barring Natives with less admixture from the tribe in order to prevent dilution of casino money.

Hasnt this occurred in Canada in a huge way? The indigenous population surged between 2000 and 2020, this is an example from the (official) Statistics Canada website:

For example, from 2011 to 2016, the Indigenous population grew by 18.9%—more than double the 2021 growth rate.

Those are chareidi/amish tier birth rates if you’re talking organic growth; indigenous Canadians aren’t that fecund, it’s pretty much all whites deciding to identify as natives.

In Canada there was an issue where the feds were trying to minimize the number of official Indians (because they are a federal responsibility), and had policies like "Indian father, white mother" --> Indian, but vice versa and you were denied status.

This was recently reversed, so there may have been a surge of metis (not the same as Metis, which is even more complex) people (who may or may not look kinda white, but are usually at least recognizably mixed) becoming officially recognized. I think they are even doing this a few generations back, so somebody who had a white grandmother --> mixed father with Indian wife living on the rez would now be recognized, which seems fairly legit.

Unless you’re trying to claim benefits from the government off of it, no one will actually stop you from just calling yourself an Indian. Is Australia the same way?

In Australia it's potential illegal to even question someone's claim of Aboriginality.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eatock_v_Bolt

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