site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   35549 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 19, 2022

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.

33
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That sounds like my university. Hard pass, that place is horrible.

Are you really being intellectually honest?

Assuming you are studying in the West, most of the students are woke. And they are most definitely having a jolly good time being surrounded by people of their own tribe.

It's horrible for you because you are an outsider. Not because that arrangement sucks.

I mean you be honest and tell me which of these are preferable to you;

  1. All of your same race, but woke.

  2. Different races but same beliefs and values as you.

I personally would prefer number 2, but I think OP's worry is that the most realistic choice is between:

A) Something like the current white majority that's partly woke, in which that wokeness is not catastophic, and

B) Different races, partly woke, in which the wokeness leads to ethnic spoils, persecution of whites, and general Brazilification.

It does seem like in Canada in particular there's room for some sort of third option, in which whiteness de facto ends up extending to the "white-adjacent", i.e. northeast Asians, high-caste Indians, and whoever else has the desire and ability to compete in a pseudo-meritocracy. I already see lots of affirmative action programs specifically for black & indigenous people.

Basically it seems plausible that there might be some sort of bifurcation between (whites and skills-based immigrants) vs (refugees and aboriginals).

And they are most definitely having a jolly good time being surrounded by people of their own tribe.

Even when I went to school the majority were on some sort of psychiatric medication, and that was before they started having to train themselves to suffer Climate Anxiety on demand. The "social justice focused community dorm" had the highest rate of students going hikko or leaving for a mental ward, despite them having appropriated the most modern and comfortable building on campus.

I don't think an ideology so well adapted to super spreading and institutional capture through performative displays of emotional dysfunction necessarily has the well-being of its hosts in mind.

deleted

I don't want to overstate it, because my girlfriend gave me all the math department gossip and some of those people were nuts (and they paled in comparison to the Harvey Mudd lads, who were legendarily on the brink of insanity/alcohol poisoning at all times).

But it never had the same edge of constant backstabbing and ritual emotional abuse as the proto-wokeist departments and social groups did.

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