site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29600 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A shared set of rules has, unfortunately, never implied a shared set of principles.

I think @FCfromSSC is being obtuse, and that accelerationism is one of the least useful philosophies known to man. Choosing defection over cooperation is the strategic equivalent of a public suicide. I concur with you that what he claims to want would result in the end of places like this.

But.

It remains within his rights to advocate for such, because the rules are not the principles. So long as he maintains the written and unwritten decorum, he could advocate for the worst and most debased philosophies, and you or I could step in to argue that he's wrong.

Do you think this is just a fine example of the kind of decorum that's acceptable here? If these kinds of posts were 100x more frequent, at the same level of decorum, would that make the motte a better or worse place? Personally I think the motte would quickly become unusable.

If these kinds of posts were 100x more frequent, at the same level of decorum, would that make the motte a better or worse place? Personally I think the motte would quickly become unusable.

This is a standard which would be failed by pretty much every post here, including the Actually A Quality Contribution posts. A 100-fold increase in frequency of any one particular type of post, no matter how good that type is, is such a drastic change that it's likely to throw the social dynamics off balance in a way that is hard to predict and thus make the forum harder to use for the people who are already accustomed to the preexisting ones.

For instance, your posts here complaining about someone else's level of decorum; if people posted these types of posts 100x as often (presuming the posts were approved), then the Motte would quickly become unusable. That's not to say that you should stop posting these; just like other people shouldn't stop posting comments that would, if scaled up 100-fold, make the Motte unusable, because that's a ridiculously high standard.

And I'll say that the post in question isn't exactly the flagship example of the kind of decorum that's acceptable here, but it's definitely well within the bounds of the kind of decorum that's acceptable here. And furthermore, personally, it's the kind of decorum that I enjoy seeing here and wouldn't mind seeing more of, though a 100-fold - or even 5-fold, TBH - increase in its frequency would definitely render the Motte unusable for my uses.

I think, if that is how people are thinking and feeling they should be able to talk about it here. I think my almost namesake is wrong on a lot of things. But I think he truthfully believes what he says, and as such it is pretty important to know that. Particularly if there are other people who feel the same way (and there are I believe). Now of course if everyone said the same thing this place would be the worse for it, because it would be more boring and echo-chambery.

Generally I think he is civil to people here and I have no problem with him saying what he says, even if I disagree with him, and think he is way too pessimistic and thus can only see (what I would perceive) as negative ways out.

Choosing defection over cooperation is the strategic equivalent of a public suicide.

Randomly scraped from the hopper:

Minnesota’s new K-12 social studies standards — now in the final stages of rulemaking approval — exemplify this ideology. The standards add ethnic studies to the core social studies disciplines of history, civics, economics, and geography, and incorporate its concepts throughout. One ethnic studies “anchor standard,” titled “Resistance,” is typical. It requires students to “organize with others to resist systemic and coordinated exercises of power” against “marginalized,” oppressed groups.

Obviously, I agree that k-12 education should emphasize the necessity of resistance to oppression. I merely insist that the correct definition of oppression be the one taught; that is to say, mine. Currently that's not the case, and I think that should change. Why would that be an invalid preference?

Kindergartners, for example, must “retell a story about an unfair experience that conveys a power imbalance.” First-graders must “identify examples of ethnicity, equality, liberation and systems of power and use those examples to construct meanings for those terms.”

High school students will be required to “analyze how caste systems based upon race, social class, and religion have been used to justify imperialism, colonization, warfare, and chattel slavery” and to “examine the construction of racialized hierarchies based on colorism and dominant European beauty standards and values.”

...The ethnic studies-driven campaign to discredit American institutions as illegitimate is most clearly evident in the standards that focus on criminal justice. Students will study our police departments and justice system in connection with an ethnic studies standard that requires them to “understand the roots of contemporary systems of oppression” and “eliminate” “injustices.”

...Fifth graders, for example, will “examine contemporary policing” and its alleged “historical roots in early America.” (The claim is that our police departments sprang directly from slave patrols of the Old South.) Sixth-graders will study the “impact” of “Minnesota’s juvenile justice system” on youth “from historically disenfranchised groups.” High school standards suggest the notion of criminality itself is racist: “Explore how criminality is constructed and what makes a person a criminal.”

...And you and I, I think, share common knowledge that the "understanding" they're inculcating of the "roots of contemporary systems of oppression" has little to no basis in fact. That is to say, they cannot actually point to discrete mechanisms by which these "systems of oppression" operate, and they cannot successfully intervene to make those "systems of oppression" stop oppressing. It's a name, not an explanation. Meanwhile, the 30% increase in the murder rate post-BLM-riots has sustained itself, it's mostly black people getting killed, and it is definately not the result of police hunting black people for sport. The people who wrote this curriculum do not actually have a way to "eliminate" "injustices", only ways to give themselves more power, and they are successfully doing it with taxpayer money.

I don't think you approve of this, but I don't think you have any real solution to it either. I think describing the strategy that produces that material is fairly described as "reject and subvert systems that work against our interests. Deny their power, hamper their operations, refuse their legitimacy, appropriate or destroy their resources". I think if you were unfortunate enough to be forced to live under a total victory by my side, you'd still be happier than under total victory by the woke. I think the overwhelming majority of the woke would be better off, though I would greatly prefer they live somewhere else. What makes you so invested in a detente that arguably never existed and certainly is no longer sustainable?

I concur with you that what he claims to want would result in the end of places like this.

I'm not seeing it. This place is very deliberately trying not to be a power center, so there's no reason to attack it. Also, while FC might not have spelled it out, the point isn't to destroy blue institutions across the world, wherever they might hiding, but to shorten their reach so they can't exercise their power over reds. Blue institutions ruling over blues is completely fine and proper. Neutral grounds like this site also have their place.

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