site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   27155 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.

If a socialist in WW2 were to support the US/UK against the Nazis, your logic would have this person counted as a capitalist since they aren't rejecting the violence.

The logic wouldn't say that they are a capitalist, the logic would say that they are a supporter of the kind of violence that the US/UK uses against the Nazis. Likewise, Palestinians are mostly supporters of the kind of violence Hamas uses, which is killing civilians.

The logic wouldn't say that they are a capitalist, the logic would say that they are a supporter of the kind of violence that the US/UK uses against the Nazis.

This is too literal a reading, the consequence of which is that you completely miss the argument being made. The socialist has two conflicting values in the conflict: fighting capitalism and fighting fascism. It would be illogical to conclude that socialist doesn't care about the former just because he supports the latter in this hypothetical.

When a socialist supports violence by a capitalist state against the Nazis, that's only "support of capitalism" in a very indirect way. They're not fighting the Nazis by trying to impose capitalism on them; they're doing it like any other state would fight a war. The connection between supporting Hamas in this war and Hamas killing civilians on purpose is far more direct; Hamas started it by killing civilians, and killing civilians is one of the tactics they use as part of the war.

Hamas started it by killing civilians, and killing civilians is one of the tactics they use as part of the war.

Yes, in the name of fighting Israel. That is a key component to the issue - the Palestinians would probably support anyone willing to fight for them against the nation they perceive as responsible for the slow dying of their people. We also know that American presidents see a boost to their approval when they declare war - why wouldn't a similar logic apply to any perceived support of Hamas?

In your scenario, the US isn't being capitalist in the name of fighting Nazis.

There's a difference between "doing X in order to do Y" and "doing X while doing Y". Capitalists fighting Nazis is the latter; Hamas is the former.

In your scenario, the US isn't being capitalist in the name of fighting Nazis.

From the standpoint of the socialist, it probably makes no difference - the capitalist mode of production remains in place and is only bolstered by removing more enemies of it. In fact, I recall one spy in the Manhattan Project giving secrets to the USSR precisely over the fear that America would be the only nation with the atomic bomb and it could be subject to fascist takeover.

But a more direct point of evidence to my view is this article.

Notably, the following:

"In this super-charged moment, the first question asked of every Palestinian is: Do you condemn the Hamas attacks?" said Omar Rahman, a U.S.-based fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, a think tank headquartered in Doha, Qatar.

"They are offended by that. They think it misses the point. ... It's an objective fact that Hamas does not represent the majority of Palestinians. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a basis of support or isn't part of the political landscape. ... Not everyone agrees with its agenda or tactics."

Then they could say "sure, we condemn them."

"We don't agree with its agenda or tactics, but we won't condemn them" means "we agree with its agenda and tactics, by revealed preference".

They think it misses the point.

It doesn't miss the point, because the point is not to get the Palestinians to talk about what's most important to themselves. It's like having a Nazi who really likes his stamp collection, but thinks "sure, all Jews should die". It doesn't "miss the point" to focus on the thing which is less important to him rather than the thing which is more important to him. It's less important to him, but it's more important to the Jews.

"We don't agree with its agenda or tactics, but we won't condemn them" means "we agree with its agenda and tactics, by revealed preference".

There's a social trick that they may be trying to avoid, wherein the condemnation is waved around as proof to remove Hamas' legitimacy and by extension, the current fighting over the Israel-Palestine issue.

But I acknowledge that I don't know and I don't necessarily have the strongest argument. I think your point is fair, but I'm not yet convinced quite yet.

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