site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   27196 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 20, 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.

The comment below is reposted from here.

I understand people think I'm a troll, but I'm not, just lazy by this forums standards I guess. If I were to describe my politics, I'm a reluctant liberal.

I want to genuinely engage with this forum on topics like this without being seen as a bad faith actor, but I really am not smart enough to offer rebuttals like others here. I just know white nationalism is wrong but I'd like to see other smarter people here provide arguments for why.

I reposted this comment to spur discussion. I'm not a white nationalist, but I'm also not smart enough to offer a rebuttal and I'd like users here, who are a lot smarter, to point out blind spots in white nationalist arguments. The comment in question presents white nationalism as benign and free association as harmless, but that strikes me as wrong. My engagement with places like American Renaissance, which is probably on the lighter side of white nationalism, suggests that white nationalists base their beliefs on a kind of crude, visceral hatred of non-whites, especially black people.

Why do discussions of white nationalism always feel the need to explicitly mention rejecting violence? It implies this is the drive that animates them, a hatred of strangers. Literal xenophobia, which conjures up images of racial superiority or a drive to subjugate others.

Most white nationalists view themselves as reluctant realists. They are in most cases pattern recognizers, not the racist stereotypes the Left love to promote. They look at mixed societies and conclude different people with different evolutionary paths have inherited different physical and mental traits. This makes living together difficult for all parties.

Some of those traits mesh well with European societies (the high IQs and restraint of East Asians), and some do not (ethnicities with significantly poorer self control and shorter time horizons). As multicultural societies mature we observe these traits are persistent. Third generation Chinese are still restrained and clever; other groups can live in Western nations for centuries and continue to behave like their distant cousins on another continent no matter what we do with education and quotas.

Whites also look at examples of what a diverse population endures, from Brazil and America to natural experiments in artificially reversing emergent power structures. In Rhodesia and South Africa a tiny number of whites ran systems for a black-majority nation, with all the apartheid and related phenomenon most find distasteful. Even the king of the Zulus laments what blacks have wrought in South Africa, although this cannot be reported in the Western press. His comments about the Bantu are actively ignored and are more explicitly racist than anything whites ever say.

Much "white nationalism" is based on one simple observation - they are coming here; we are not going there. It is their job to assimilate not our job to agonize over the failure of them to do so.

Even more important, when the imperial era came to an end those who were there left when asked. India, the African nations and others cleared out their Europeans. Jamaica was handed over wholesale to the former slaves. The Haitians acquired their country in a manner more violent than even the liberals claim whites to be today. In modern terms all these nations rejected multiculturalism which they viewed as unnatural.

We are being held to standards no one else cares about and that even seeps in to articles like this, with the need to reassure everyone else our concerns about losing our cultures and territory are seen as an aberration. We have to guard against those questioning the status quo and explicitly reassure people violence must be rejected which plants a seed that curiosity about this subject is dangerous.

Finally, white nationalists look at the cultural tropes in the nations people are leaving to come to our nations. Pakistan and Arab countries do not tolerate foreigners emigrating to their countries. Pakistan have just expelled 1.7m Afghans, most Sunni muslims with similar social mores to Pakistanis, because they are "prone to criminality and terrorism." No hand wringing, no agonizing over "Pakistani nationalism." They couldn't assimilate despite Pakistan's best efforts so they were sent packing.

Nobody in Pakistan emphasizes only a tiny proportion of Afghans misbehave. Some of them do and the Pakistanis refuse to expend resources filtering through their population to find the bad ones. They had their chance and the safety of the natives trumps everything.

I get the need to be neutral, to be decent. But a big drive for people seeking out the data and the hard facts is this constant framing of homogeneity as being unusual or distasteful despite the fact 90 percent of the world's population views it as normal.

Believing the blank slate mantra and then observing something quite different is hard to make sense of. In primitive societies we would see something like the violent xenophobe reaction Western nations worry about. In European societies we see the opposite, with people very reluctantly concluding this may be going wrong. Lets find out, lets test, lets look around and see where culture mixing has actually worked and try that. Then we discover it doesn't seem to work anywhere. Even worse we find out almost no one thinks it makes sense. China is for the Chinese and India is for the Indians.

We all know the use of white nationalism is a euphemism for white supremacist or violent thugs who hate people that look different. The need to remind us of this potential for violence retards the genuine discussions we desperately need to try to make this all work or to abandon it completely.

User jewdefender has been banned. Discussing with other mods right now.

A few of us have high certainty that they are a troll of some sort. We just haven't been willing to ban, because it is not 100% certainty.

But they are also single issue posting and copy and pasted a comment from elsewhere to originally pass off as their own writing.

Edit: mod consensus is that this will stay as a permaban

Edit2: adding comment quote for posterity

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