site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   26173 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 1, 2024

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sure, I don't expect you to say "Yes, I'm a racist." But under any definition of racist, your beliefs fit. You are objecting to the label, not denying the phenomenon.

So when you post that "racism doesn't exist," I will continue to point out that it does, in fact, exist, even if it is something that you would like to be embraced and relabeled.

The word racism, like the word "sinfulness", exists insofar as it is a mechanism for controlling the minds and behaviors of the laity. So you can argue that sinfulness exists all day long because there is a religion that has a dictionary definition for it, and it lays out a clear set of criteria for the behaviors that constitute sinfulness. That doesn't interest me, my interest is in dislodging the mind-control broadcasted by that word.

The word racism, like the word "sinfulness", exists insofar as it is a mechanism for controlling the minds and behaviors of the laity.

Nonsense. The word racism describes a belief system. I think that belief system is bad, you think that belief system is good. If we used some other word or phrase (like "racial self interest") to mean the same thing but with a positive connotation, and that received widespread adoption, you would not object to it. You are objecting to the perception of "sinfulness," not to the objectively observable behavior which some people label sinful.

Sinfulness encompasses belief systems too, Amadan.

This is like us arguing over whether BAP is a sinner. If I reject the religious system that frames sinfulness, I'm not going to say "yeah BAP is totally a sinner" I'm going to say "can we stop trying to use the word 'sinner' to pigeonhole beliefs when we should all frankly know better? Sinfulness isn't real, the label is a mechanism for mind-control and behavior-control." This is what Hoffmeister is doing.

A more anodyne way to ask the question might be "Does BAP believe these things about other races...?" But it's the same question. Again, I understand why you'd prefer the separation of "sin" from "racism," but I am not motivated to accommodate your preferences.

"Racist" was never anything else except a post-WWII and post-Holocaust framing of "sinner" suited for the 20th and 21st century. That's the point Hoffmeister was making. It was always that from the very beginning, it was never at any point anything else. That's what the word is.

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