site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30043 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 13, 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.

Well, how has Muslim immigration the West worked out? I'd argue not very well and we should try to restrict to essentially zero. Do you think Rashida Tlaib is a net positive for the US? Has Muslim immigration made France or the UK better or worse? Where is the arrow pointing in regards to this assimilation we are told is going to happen soon?

Every Muslim I can think of in the US is chill and successful. They’re stereotypically doctors and IT workers.

Thats like me saying all the Asians I know are lawyers and engineers. I only know lawyers and engineers (and a few medical professionals of various ranks). Further the misconception is caused by the immigration system being somewhat tight, so it really is the top 2% of Arabs coming to join the top 50% of Americans. And even then, they have poor voting patterns and poor criminal outcomes, particularly income adjusted.

Do you think that is representative of the average Arab immigrant to the West i.e. the refugee waves in Europe or the average Arab in the Middle East or North Africa? Also not all of them are like that there were Afghan gangs at my high school whose parents were refugees.

Arab != Muslim. A plurality of Muslims in Christian Europe (i.e. not Turkey, TRNC or traditionally Muslim areas of European Russia) are ethnic Turks. They tend to be well-behaved, and whether you think that Turkish immigration to e.g. Germany has been a net positive for Germans will track your position on whether minimally-selective immigration is a net positive in general.

In the UK, South Asian Muslims are pretty clearly a net positive if you exclude Mirpuri Pakistanis (a specific community who came to greater Leeds to take up low-skill textile jobs after their villages were flooded by a dam, and which grows exponentially by fetching marriage). Turkish Cypriots are sufficiently well-assimilated that it is hard to tell, but that probably implies that they are a small net positive. Mirpuris and Somalis are the main source of problems - neither group is Arab.

Iranian immigrants are, in my experience, extremely intelligent and definitely a net positive.

Are you talking LA style Persians who fled after the Shah was deposed, many of whom are actually Jews?

I had a bunch of Persian electrical engineering profs and worked with a couple of Persians. They seemed like they immigrated in the last few decades.

I would actually agree with you here for the most part. Persians also aren't Arabs though so have a very different culture.

Muslim immigrants from where? India, home to about ten percent of the world's Muslims? Indonesia? The Balkans? Even Trump's original "Muslim ban" did not apply to 90% of the world's Muslims.

All of them, but especially Arabs, North Africans, Africans, and Pakistanis.

Rashida Tlaib has a law degree so are you happy she's here?

I mean, there are plenty of people who think we'd would've been better off if we turned the ancestor of the Boebert's around at Ellis Island.

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