site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28224 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 23, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why is this war "different?" Is the Israel-Hamas conflict is the first time that many young progressives have been on the opposite side from "public" opinion? How will that loss of popular support impact culture wars forward, or will it all?

I remember the mantra of "silence is violence" during the BLM protests. "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." But there has been a lot of silence- probably because speaking up has led to job offers being revoked, although some of those who lost their offers are not backing down:

Davis also asked "Do you condemn Hamas' actions on Oct. 7?" In response, Workman said "I think what I use my platform for and who I condemn was pretty clear by my message."

And Davis asked several times if there was room for empathy for the Israelis who died.

"I will continue to use my voice to uplift the voices of Palestinians and the struggles they're going through," Workman said.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/nyu-student-criticized-lost-job-offer-israel-hamas/story?id=104235399

Reddit removed this post for violating community guidelines, but it was a plea to Black women to stay silent about the conflict and not get involved (the comments are still up for some context of reactions): https://old.reddit.com/r/BlackWomenDivest/s/8IU6rXCvle

Why was there so much pressure for everyone to rise up and speak out during other injustices (Ukraine, Uyghurs, BLM, etc) but for this one, the advice is to shut up, sit down, stay out of it? Why did the rhetoric around social justice and activism drastically change overnight? BLM (the organization, not the movement) has gotten in trouble for antisemitism and/or support for Palestine in the past - why is it suddenly going quiet now? Is this the first real consequence to some of the progressive left's views, the first line in the sand?

Is the Israel-Hamas conflict is the first time that many young progressives have been on the opposite side from "public" opinion?

I was a young progressive who was vehemently opposed to the Iraq war. Does that count as being on the opposite side from public opinion? The war itself obviously happened, but I don't know if public opinion really would have changed that either way.

The Israel/Hamas conflict is really interesting because it is tearing the progressive coalition apart.

In every other major news event recently (BLM riots / Covid lockdowns / Ukraine war) there has been an unambiguous correct orthodoxy that is strictly enforced on all members of the coalition. Even slightly wavering from the party line is sufficient for cancellation.

Early on in the war, it seemed like we almost go to a similar point. There were strong efforts to make support for Israel the official party line. A few people even got canceled for expressing support for Palestine. But the inconvenient truth is that a majority of the progressive rank and file supports Palestine over Israel.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. Neither party feels like a natural home for Jewish people right now. Will Jewish people start to lean towards the Republicans? Will the Democrats abandon their progressive wing? I guess we'll see. The conflict has been a real mask-off moment for who the real anti-Semites are in America.

To use the UK as a parallel example, provided this source is correct (the link to the paper it cites is broken) Jews here voted 31% for Labour and 30% for Conservatives. Remove don't knows and it's 36% to 35%. The actual election result was 29% to 36%, so they were somewhat more likely to vote Labour than the general population.

Then Corbyn became the leader of Labour after their 2015 election loss and, to massively simplify, falls firmly on the pro-Hamas wing of progressivism, and arguably doesn't even care about domestic progressive policymaking at all because he's a foreign policy wonk. So at the next election, Jews voted 63% for Conservative to 26% for Labour, the latter likely holding up somewhat only because the third party left-wing option had collapsed. The actual election results were 42% and 40% respectively.

Note, Jews supporting the Conservatives was used by some as a deflection for Corbyn's antisemitism on the basis that they'd be politically motivated to smear opposition candidates, but prior to him showing up, Jews did not align with the Conservatives, or any other party, in any particular way.

It has been darkly amusing to watch the "NAZIS ARE EVERYWHERE, WE MUST FIGHT BACK" crowd going to bat for the honest-to-goodness "Round up the Jews and exterminate them" authoritarian brigade.

I recognize that secular progressive types believe that Satan isn't real, and that the idea that the Adversary reveals himself through his accusations is a silly backward superstition. But as bets go, it continues to pay out.

Edit: a word

Adversary reveals himself through his accusations

I didn't know this was a common idea? Is there some background reading for it?

I don't know whether it qualifies as "common idea" but Satan's role in Catholic doctrine is as "the accuser" or "the prosecutor". And there is a related idea that as it is what he does, he cannot do otherwise. Satan accuses God of being a narcissist, a hypocrite, and power-mad because those are the facets of God that Satan sees in himself. This manifests itself in trad-cath circles in various ways, including the old saw about for every finger pointed there are 4 pointed back.

Will Jewish people start to lean towards the Republicans?

They'll more likely support Hamas than Republicans, exceptions like Kushner aside. That's how powerful Democratic hold over respectability is.

They'll more likely support Hamas than Republicans, exceptions like Kushner aside.

As a Jewish man, i can’t even begin to describe how misinformed this is. Believe you me, we are the furthest thing from a monolith, with the quirky Larry David-esque stereotype being but a minuscule sliver of the diversity of the American Jewish community.

Consider this: just today in my random internet readings, I’ve come across Jewish opinion running the full gamut: from far-right hawks like Ben Shapiro, to stereotypical campus, progressives, academic leftists, deeply religious orthodox and pickup-driving gun toting southerners. We are all of that and more, plus everything in between.

Your random internet readings give you a qualitative view, not a quantitative one. The vast bulk of American Jews, aside from the ultra-orthodox, are Democrats through and through.

This is meaningless though without the accounting for the political leanings of where Jews happen to live. I’m willing to bet if you the average Jew was no more democrat leaning than the median voter in his county, you’d still come away with Jews, measured at the national level, leaning democrat. But normalize for the political leanings of where Jews live and I guarantee you’d see a very different picture.

Even if their Democratic lean is caused by location (which I doubt), they're still not going to vote Republican; it's just not done.

Jews have been leaning more republican in the last number of elections

That's normalizing out the result though. If they had more political diversity, they wouldn't all chose to live in those places.

If they had more political diversity, they wouldn't all chose to live in those places.

What's your evidence that the causality always goes from location to political views?

I read the above comment as pointing in the other direction. That people with 'urban' political views are more likely to move to the city and less likely to move away.

Secular Jews have 70% intermarriage rates, Orthodox are more conservative politically. Realignment is already happening, but it will take a while for it to show up in polling data. The main thing that affects how Jewish populations vote is religious conservatism, not really secular politics (even zionism). British Jews are more Orthodox than American Jews and the majority vote Tory, in recent years this was construed as a backlash against Corbyn's pro-Palestinian sentiment, but this was incorrect. In 2015, before Corbyn and when the Labour party literally had a Jewish candidate for PM, polling suggested only 22% of British Jews would vote Labour, 69% planned to vote Tory. 65% of British Jews are at least nominally Orthodox, perhaps 15-20% (if that) of American Jews are.

As the American Jewish population becomes more Orthodox political alignment will slowly switch.

“become more orthodox” -> does this mean Jewish population goes up or down? I assume Orthodox Jews have more kids, but I assume way less than the super Orthodox ones in Brooklyn?

does this mean Jewish population goes up or down?

You need to define the term "Jewish population" for this question to make sense because the parent relies on an intermarriage rate.

People with Jewish ancestry? Probably up. People with Jewish ancestry >50%? Probably down. People who identify as Jews? Also probably down, unless it becomes trendy. That's the short term anyways, long term, the numbers could increase with the birth rates that the orthodox have.

Estimates of the US Jewish population vary significantly because of the high rates of intermarriage and large non-observant population. In the long term I’d guess the population would rise. Modern Orthodox have fewer children than Chareidim (Ultra-Orthodox), but often still well above replacement.

I don't think Jews are quite as captured by slave mentality/outgroup bias as other progressive whites.

Is it different?

Your Reddit link is the first time I’ve seen (the remnants of) a call for inaction. That strikes me as weird and off-brand, yes. Are you seeing similar calls elsewhere?

The default mode for activism is expansion. Current Thing has to be more important, more urgent, more worthy of attention. This is pure memetic pressure; it’s not specific to any issue or ideological bent. Any departure from that has to be unusual.

Why was there so much pressure for everyone to rise up and speak out during other injustices (Ukraine, Uyghurs, BLM, etc) but for this one, the advice is to shut up, sit down, stay out of it?

I don’t think this is the advice, I think there’s just chaos in the discourse. Ukraine and Uyghurs were Kaczynski-type pseudo-revolts, the System’s Neatest Trick: capturing the energy of potential rebels and sublimating them to what the system actually wants. BLM was similar, killing three birds with one stone: propagating against Trump, pitting the white majority against each other (including upper class vs middle class police / small business owners), ensuring youthful energy is wasted on something irrelevant. In the case of Israel-Palestine, there’s contention over who the victims are. This is because what the system requires (sympathy for Israel) is at odds with what the system generally teaches: sympathy for poor brown people who are marginalized and colonized by white people. It strikes me that the system usually teaches this because it’s implicitly pro-immigration, helpful for getting middle class people not to care about demographic replacement or wage issues caused by tens of millions of illegal brown immigrants. But the propaganda values clash here, hence the schizophrenia of discourse.

The sub appears to be connected to the "black women divestment" movement. I've seen references to this a couple of times, but the whole idea seems to generally be connected to the idea that black women should detach themselves from the general "black community" (ie. black men), start dating white guys and concentrate on self-improvement instead of social justice causes. ie. according to this Medium post that I found and that bashes the movement:

Divest/ Divest Black Women/Divested Black Women

This movement is derived from BWE, but with a more intentional focus on “divesting” oneself from the Black community, from social justice (#BurnTheCape), and from issues relating to Black male oppression. Self-improvement (feminization training, weight loss, professional development) is promoted as a means of achieving hypergamy. Compared to BWE/BWGTOW, there is more of a focus on colorism and the disparate treatment of monoracial dark-skinned Black women (DSBW). Less centralized, and more spread out across social media platforms, this movement appears to be the most current as well as the most popular iteration of the BWE ecosystem. As I will explain later, this movement is also notable for its idealization of traditional gender roles, and its pointed interest in the perceived failure of Black men (especially in Western countries) in comparison to other groups of men. Predominantly Black neighborhoods are derisively called “Blackistan”. “Blackistan” is a conceptual place where Black dysfunction and violent crime flourish.

I would expect such a movement to have offbeat views on a great variety of things, and wouldn't certainly use it as a barometer for progressive thought.

This is fascinating. I wonder what the scope or reach of this movement is. I'd never heard of it.

Being blue collar I hear things that the median motteizean would not be told, and this kind of movement is utterly unsurprising. Black men and women do not like or trust each other at all and (to be clear, warranted in aggregate)complaints about black men’s poor behavior are far more relevant to the typical black woman than some nonsense about white oppression.

I have never heard of this movement but I would have predicted that something like it exists.

Black men and women do not like or trust each other at all

You're overstating this I think (I say this as a white man married to a BWD leaning black woman), it's still a minority position and "dating out" is still very much not the norm. So saying they don't like or trust each other at all is going way too far.

What is true is that there are fractures caused by (perceived?) double standards of black men dating white women being unhappy black women date white men, and of "dusty" black men who cheat/abandon their families, which is the core of the BWD complaints. And fractures the other way about black men who feel black women date white men for money or for racial reasons ("Black men keep telling me white men are keeping them down and making excuses, if so then why should I date the servant and not the master?")

I'm pretty much the only white guy at most family functions and most of the other guests are still dating/married within their race, so don't generalize too far I think. Having said that, some of my wifes friends have apparently changed their dating preferences to include white men after seeing the success of our relationship after initially having a lot of doubts about interracial dating so there is that.

I'm fairly sure black women generally score the lowest for interracial appeal in dating app data, which might be part of it.

Then again there's generally strong correlations between being a black woman and a bunch of things the dating market isn't a fan of such as Obesity, dependents etc. which might mean that the antipathy towards Black Women is overstated on account of the correlated factors.

Like I found in my personal dating I tended to end up pursuing more Asian girls than anything else, but that was more due to a preference for 'My partner ideally has graduated university, isn't overweight, hasn't got somebody else's kids etcetera' than necessary a strong preference in isolation.

I agree with everything you just said. But I also wonder, is there a genetic hotness/beauty component to the trend as well? I will admit that when I was in college, I actually kind of thought that there was not such a thing as an attractive black woman (or rather that they were exceedingly rare, like only Halle Berry and other movie stars). I since have come to know black women in everyday life that I think are legit attractive. But I do wonder where my previous belief came from and if there's any truth to it. Is it nature, nurture, or was I just completely wrong in my belief? Does the black female face structure more commonly have more masculine components to it? That's what I used to think. Or is it obesity like you say, or ghetto dress culture of wearing baggy ugly clothes, or even is it that our culture really just doesn't prefer African American features like frizzy hair?

Also, I think that another trend for low dating appeal is personality, as well. This is easier to believe as just being "nurture". You'll hear this from black men all the time, about how black women are unpleasant to be around for being nagging, abusive, and even violent. The causes for this could be many things, from just confirmation bias, to black women being bitchy because they've been told by intersectional progressives that they have the shortest end of the stick, to maybe even them actually having the shortest end of the stick, and getting a raw deal, stuck with the unwanted kids, etc.

Responding to @Forgotpassword as well here.

Speaking as a white gay man so your milage may vary. But as a gay top I am attracted to Asian and Latino men who are a bit smaller than me. It's difficult to top men who I perceive as bigger or stronger or more violent/aggressive than me so it's more difficult to top black or Middle Eastern men even though I often find them attractive in an abstract way. Even when I do "top" a man taller and hotter than me it leaves me feeling weird because I don't feel superior to him in any way so it feels like it shouldn't have happened. I suspect that straight men who are not black might find black women harder to "top" (excuse the weird gay metaphor applied to heterosexual intercourse) compared to white or Asian women. You have to be able to believe that you have a right to screw the person you're screwing and it's easier to believe it when you have a physical advantage over that person physically.

Does the black female face structure more commonly have more masculine components to it?

I don't know if it's necessarily "masculinity" that black women have more of but it's possibly some combination of aggression and strength and dominance that is off putting psychologically in a sexual context. Black men look stronger and more dominant so trying to top them as a white man is difficult and weird, compared with other more docile looking guys. I imagine it's the same with women, broadly speaking.

I imagine it's the same with women, broadly speaking.

Interesting post, thank you for it -- but this part is where I'm pretty sure you went off the rails.

More comments

I think what this comes down to is that the AA community has a shortage of both eligible men and desirable women, for a variety of reasons, and the coping strategies for that often make sense in the short term but tend to screw over the individual blacks engaging in them over the longer term, and that addressing the underlying problems just gets them defected on, and this drives resentment between the sexes.

thanks for sharing.

Do you think this is a class thing? i.e. the BW that go to college and get white collar jobs vs BW who never leave their community? I assume BM date outside their race at higher % for higher income etc as well.

Now that I write it out, I think probably most people in all races have some positive correlation between higher income and higher multicultural rates in today’s america

My guess is it is bimodal. Low class and PMC.

Opportunity and familiarity are big parts of it I think,so i would expect socio-economic status to correlate. My wife is a lawyer, but her mum still lives in the house she has for 50 odd years, which is now smack dab in the middle of Section 8 housing ghetto as she describes it. When I am there, I am one of only a handful of white people on the block. So anyone living and working there is unlikely to run into many white guys.

On a separate note, i have never felt particularly at risk there, even though there have been shootings on the block. The victims are almost invariably black men/teens involved in gangs/drugs or drill rap feuds. Now I did grow up in the Troubles in Northern Ireland and have been in a few brawls so my risk tolerance may also be higher.

Interesting, reminds me of the show Insecure, where in a story arc the second-main character (bestfriend of main character, BW, also a lawyer herself) visits her parents and discovers they cannot retire, or something like that. But then other BW friend (accountant) helps them out.

I wonder how many Northern Irish guys marry American black women. And then how many of them visit TheMotte. You are a unicorn I imagine haha

Jamaican x Irish is common in my neighbourhood of south-east London - 3 kids in my older son's primary school class. It also provides evidence that you can indeed have a black redhead - at least on the American definition where any mixed-race person with visible black in the mix counts as "Black".

So probably not a unicorn. If Ginnie Thomas has Irish ancestry (likely as she is PMC and Catholic, and Thomas isn't an Italian name) then Clarence and Ginnie Thomas are probably the most famous example of African-American x Irish.

You might not believe this, but he's not.

More comments

Self-improvement (feminization training

This meme will require an update.

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