site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   25097 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 25, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I have evidence, because I have been on here a while, and just as there are some commenters here who clearly have issues with Jews, there are some who have issues with blacks. Not all, nor even a majority, but some.

Normally I wouldn't do it, since I find these sort of requests disingenuous, but since you insist the above is a valid approach, can you please link the evidence that the same people objecting to how Romney was treated are the same people who have expressed a problem with black people?

And, for the record, I demand evidence for claims that I like. I am not a fan of Justice Alito's jurisprudence, and so it would be great to dismiss him as a "partisan hack," but alas I can't, without evidence

That doesn't mean your demands for rigor is in any way balanced.

Do you form your beliefs in a different manner?

Of course, evidence is just one of the factors that shapes my beliefs. I think very few people base their beliefs solely on evidence, nor do I think it's healthy to do so.

  • I think very few people base their beliefs solely on evidence, nor do I think it's healthy to do so.

Perhaps, that is a red herring. The issue is whether it is unhealthy to base belefs on a complete lack of evidence, or on things that purport to be evidence, but are not.

  • -10

I don't think I every met anyone who did the former, and practically everyone is guilty of the other to some extent or another. Arguable the latter is even a good reason to not base your beliefs solely on evidence.

and practically everyone is guilty of the other to some extent or another

That doesn't make it ok, and the proper response when someone points out that one has fallen victim thereto is thanks.

So how come you haven't thanked me for pointing out what you considered to be evidence that some of the people complaining about Romney's treatment actually have a problem with Obama's skin color, is not evidence of that?

Because that is not what you said, and if you meant to imply that, you are mistaken; as I explained, there is indeed evidence for my statement. That does not, of course, mean that the statement is necessarily correct. But it is consistent with the evidence.

  • -10

Then produce the freakin' evidence. I'm one of the "most of the people complaining" about how Romney was treated by both traditional and social media, and thus you are including me in the set of those who "are more concerned about who he was running against. And for some of those people, more specifically the race of that person".

So if you're going to imply, intimate, or otherwise Hint Darkly that I'm anti-Obama, anti-Obama because he is black, and anti-black people hence a racist, I want Your. Goddamn. Evidence. Clear. And. Plain.

If you're backing out because you don't want to name names such as "X, Y and Z have expressed racist opinions", then you are well aware you are breaking forum rules. If you're backing out because you have no names, just 'my general impression of this site', then buzz on over to Sneerclub if that place is still up and running.

Dude, if you think "some of those people" refers to you specifically, that's on you.

Let's review: It is common knowledge that some people here express anti-black animus. Indeed, this site prides itself, and rightfully so, in giving users the freedom to express such sentiments. Indeed, as I understand it, that was one of the reasons for leaving reddit.

Now, OP noted that many people here seem to be very exorcised about Romney, and only Romney, supposedly being treated unfairly during the rough and tumble of a presidential campaign, despite the fact that they don't seem to be particularly enamored of Romney himself. It stands to reason, therefore, that they might be less upset that Romney lost than that Obama won. Now, there are many reasons why one might be opposed to Obama being reelected, but for those people here who display anti-black animus, one would have to willfully ignore human nature not to hypothesize that his race might be a factor. Which, again, does not make them bad people. After all, 100 years ago, most people were far more racist than that, but most people 100 years ago were not bad people; I assume that they were on average just as bad or good as people today.

  • -10

Let's review: It is common knowledge that some people here express anti-black animus. Indeed, this site prides itself, and rightfully so, in giving users the freedom to express such sentiments. Indeed, as I understand it, that was one of the reasons for leaving reddit.

HBD is not by definition animus to groups that on average perform worse. I tire of the refusal, despite frequent reminders, to acknowledge this by people who should know better. It has, once again, caused you to completely mischaracterize and misunderstand the position of people here. There is nothing at all about HBD that commits its believers to doubting Obama's competency.

The flip side to 'a hit dog will hollar' is that 'beaten dogs will bark at brooms'. There's very few conservatives (or libertarians!) who even attempted serious political discourse during the 2008 or 2012 campaign eras that were not intimately familiar with broad-scale and direct claims that the only possible source of disagreement with any given Obama policy was Racism.

And this game where you note there are some racists here, and some of them share your opponent's positions, and no you'll never name a name or exclude individuals by name, is just as old.

Nope, you don't get to weasel word your way out of this. You did not lead off with "some of the people complaining", you went with "most of the people".

Since I'm one of the people complaining, am I included in the "most" by you? How am I to know who you do and don't mean, unless you are willing to name names or give examples?

Because otherwise "Dude, I didn't mean you and if you thought I did then that just proves you're a racist" is not good enough.

People pick Romney, even if they don't like him, because he was the 'nice guy' candidate and he got hauled through the shit, so don't try the old "it's the fault of the Republicans for not picking nice guy candidates".

More comments

Hahaha you said it! Post the evidence.

Ah, well then, perhaps whatever you consider to be not evidence is indeed evidence!

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