site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   35553 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.

Maybe there's some kind of meta-political belief underlying that, like obedience vs intellectual independence.

You describe obedience in both cases; the only difference you mention is the target of that obedience. Why is deference to Marx any less submissive than deference to Twitter? At least Twitter occasionally has good ideas.

No, 5HM is describing a categorical difference in the relationship. The premise is that group 1 engages with the target on a more “intellectual” level than group 2 is doing. This is useful as a proxy for shared values separate from the actual values of the ideology.

Compare vanilla Protestants vs charismatic Christian sects. An obedient believer from one isn’t necessarily going to feel comfortable with the other. The institutions signal different values.

It sounds like they believe that nobody could intellectually engage with trump to conclude he was playing 4d chess all along. Or; that nobody could intellectually engage with twitter and conclude that mobs are right and useful. Use of the phrase "marching orders" hints at this.

Mino (if I may speak for him) and I both agree that this is just a farcical comparison of apples and oranges. A person who executes tribal signals is not a person that is said to be having beliefs.

Really, 5HM is listing out annoying tribal behaviors while the topic under discussion is "irreconcilable political beliefs."

It sounds like they believe that nobody could intellectually engage with trump to conclude he was playing 4d chess all along.

Yes.

Though maybe I need to specify: when I refer to "Trump 4d Chess" I don't mean a mild, motte-ish version that Trump is capable of more complex and high risk political play-calling than we normally see because he's politically unmoored to the establishment traditions that preclude them. I'm referring to people I know who told me, specifically and seriously, that Trump passed power to the military before Biden's inauguration, and that he would resume power in cooperation with the MyPillow guy some time in August 2021. Then October 2021. Etc. That's not something you get out of a reasoned analysis of available evidence. Ditto various twitterati positions, though I can't picture someone who cares deeply about a lot of those things liking me anyway so it's sort of a wash.

Change it to

a person who executed tribal signals is not necessarily a person who is having beliefs

And I think we, and probably @FiveHourMarathon, would agree.

Neither the clout-chasing Marxbro or the chad Engels enthusiast are necessarily expressing intellectual rigor. Same for the 5D chess—the grid of (is/isn’t chessmaster) vs. (tribal/rational reasoning) has two more quadrants. But there is a correlation between the two axes.

Yes, the sects send different signals, but the matter isn't obedient vs independent.

Dead gods have a big advantage over living gods: their words are etched in stone and they can't come up with a bright new idea to cause a ruckus. That's why invisible, silent divinities are preferred over god-kings.

Even the Devil can quote scripture. A dead god is a mouthpiece for whoever cares to speak.

Did I describe obedience to Marx? I described reading Marx and Zinn, with the obvious implication of reading others as well and interpreting them for yourself. I get along with people who read widely and form their own opinions, not with doctrinaire dogmatics.

What is the difference here between "taking marching orders" and "absorbing things they read and forming opinions"? Why is it different to be inspired by Marx than by LibsOfTikTok?

I'm describing people I'd want to date, as opposed to people I wouldn't want to date. People who read Marx are going to get along with me better. If you truly can't see the qualitative differences between LibsOfTikTok's "intellectual product" and The Eighteenth Brumaire because Communism Doesn't Work, then I don't know what to tell you. Guess we'll never date. Alas, you'll miss out on staring into my piercing blue eyes and feeling my pillowy soft lips on yours. But it just wouldn't work, I love high quality historically important philosophical work whether I agree with it or not.

I guess the difference I'm going for is somewhat analytical? If you're reading big thinkers and understand the nuts and bolts of your philosophy, it's qualitatively different from someone who reads "thinkpieces" and parrots talking points. I'm happy to talk Biblical or Quranic theology with anyone, I'm uninterested in hearing about what anyone saw on the 700 club.

Firstly, let me say that my preferences match yours: I don't care about object-level signals in partners. I care about meta-level engagement styles. If someone asked me why, I would just say I noticed a correlation between the kinds of people I enjoy, and the engagements they have.

  1. Am I making a category error by calling that my reason? Maybe that's just my strategy to satisfy my goals?

  2. Would you accept that as your reason? Does there need to be some grand, real underlying factor?

What I'm suggesting is that the difference between "carefully absorbs knowledge to synthesize into new and personal understandings" and "recklessly takes in nonsense from unreliable internet sources to parrot" is largely the difference between whether you respect the person and their viewpoint or not, and not any sort of intellectual rigor. Some of the dumbest social media hot takes are from academic wordcels who live and breathe their ideologies and by all rights are reasonably high IQ.

I get you on the analytical bit, I appreciate good conversation and coherent thoughts when having serious talks. But alas, you're right: we can never be. I'm pretty aggressively anti-philosophy.

Just philosophy and seven inches of anatomy stand between our love.

Twitter doesn't make for a good look for most academics, though there are exceptions. But over lunch, I get along with most academics I've run into. Longform vs Shortform.

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