site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   26934 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 25, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Remember the moslem vs LGBT controversy earlier this year in Michigan? Now it's Canada's turn:

Rallies and marches were held across Canada on Wednesday with the goal of eliminating Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) curriculum and gender inclusive policies from schools.

In Calgary, where local media reports that the anti-trans protesters outnumbered the counter-protesters, a disturbing scene unfolded. The protest’s organizer, Mahmoud Mourra, stood on a low concrete wall, cycling through people, including children, who he encouraged to speak to the crowd.

As one young boy waits to come up to the microphone, Mourra says, “Those guys, they want to tell my son or my daughter for she can be he and now they come with the new term she can be it, a cat or a dog.” Mourra, who was charged by Calgary Police with anti-2SLGBTQ+ hate motivated criminal harassment from online incidents in June, then characterizes the 2SLGBTQ+ community and their allies as "unacceptable, confusing, mentally ill."

Most of these protests were carried out by moslems and after relentless attacks from the Canadian establishment, one of the largest moslem organisations of Canada put out a statement on Twitter - clearly not backing off. This tussle reopens the wounds from earlier this year. Many white liberals were often the first to defend moslem immigrants/refugees and now many are feeling betrayed ("we stood for you, but you won't stand for us"). The right here in Europe has long been using liberal talking points to try to coax white centrists to oppose moslem immigration, but a key feature of both the Michigan brouhaha and this current controversy is that there is no longer such a strong streak of opportunism. Indeed, one gets the sense that many Christian conservatives are elated to have found allies in the fight against LGBT+ ideology.

I think this raises a key dilemma for liberals. If culture is much "stickier" than they assumed, would having a liberal immigration regime necessarily be a good idea? Conversely, might we see a more relaxed stance from the right which has traditionally been very hostile against 3rd world migration, particularly from the Islamic world? We've been told for decades that Hispanic immigrants are very "conservative and family-oriented" but this has mostly been exposed as a hoax. The 2nd gen typically assimilate quite rapidly into liberal culture. The same may not be true to the same extent for moslems.

Finally, for many moslems, voting for the left-liberal parties was often a "necessary evil". In Germany, the Turks are notorious for overwhelmingly backing the social democrats while they vote for Erdogan in supermajorities. On economic policy, they are rational but on social issues they are voting against their own views. What these small tussles may signal is that moslems perhaps feel secure enough not to blindly follow the left out of fear of a nativist backlash from the right. They swallowed the social programming as a necessary evil but this is clearly starting to wane. Clearly, the white left and the brown moslems had a very effective electoral alliance for many decades and I am not one to declare it dead this soon. However, I doubt we will ever get back to business as usual. Something is rupturing here.

I think this raises a key dilemma for liberals. If culture is much "stickier" than they assumed, would having a liberal immigration regime necessarily be a good idea?

I doubt US or Canadian liberals will ask this question, at least when the people in question are brown(you periodically see Canadian progressives handwringing about Dutch calvinist immigration in inconsequential ways). Instead they’ll double down on needing gender unicorns in kindergarten classrooms.

The OP has been deleted, but I’m really curious about how it led to such a response. Where’d gender come into it?

Odd, I can still see it.

I can, now. Perhaps an artifact of filtering?

@Amadan, can you confirm if this one had to be approved?

I asked the original user about it, and suggested that people don't like seeing deleted posts. They had said they deleted it originally because the topic was potentially already discussed.

The user likely undeleted it.

Don't know. It's not immediately obvious from the mod logs. I have seen several posts recently that appeared to be deleted and later reappeared. I am not sure if a poster can "undelete" their posts. Maybe @ZorbaTHut can shed more light.

Undeleting is possible

It was a post about much based Muslim immigrants to Canada/US maybe causing liberals to reevaluate their attitude to 3rd world immigration. Actually kind of high effort even if naive.

@ZorbaTHut Have we considered preventing users from deleting top-level posts? I don't remember it being a problem in the past, but it's getting kind of annoying.

I have considered bringing it up, however there was only one recent case where I suspected foul play. Most top level comment deletions are for good or "ok" reasons.

As a moderator I can see deleted comments. Duplicates are the most common reason, followed probably by wrong location posts (responding to the top level or the wrong comment).

If we see anyone abusing top level comment deletions we will take action. But I think it would be best to leave the functionality available for the common use case of mistake posts.

Removing the account name I'd say, in case they weren't wanting it linked to them. (And if it is already in archive.org or someone's scrape, then too late anyway)

It is getting tiresome but I'm going to advocate this restriction only apply to posts with answers if possible.

People make TLPs by mistake, and they shouldn't need the admins to delete them.

If it’s technically possible I’m going to second this, at least as applies to the CWR.

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