site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   35661 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022

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.

26
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

He's associating "rootless cosmopolitan bankers" with Jews because historically, that phrase has been used on Jews. Your argument could be made about any epithet. What makes you think that "crackers" refers to lower class white people? After all, he just said "crackers", he didn't mention their skin color at all!

In short you can hear the racist dog-whistle because racism (IE judging people on the basis of race) is an integral component of your worldview.

I can hear the racist dogwhistle because i'm familiar with history. The other times people said that, it was predominantly in a context where it meant "Jews". In other words "racism is an integral component of my worldview" in the sense "racism actually exists". And, you know what? Racism does exist.

@SSCReader made a good point up thread but I feel like this instance in this context is closer @ApplesauceIrishCream describes. IE if someone who is not a Jew keeps trying make everything about the Jews in itself is a red flag. Ditto, male feminists, and white academics who wont shut up about black victimhood.

The phrase has historically been used to refer to Jews. The people who are "making" it be about Jews are the people who've said it in the past.

I think this is a case where the phrase just has too much obvious use even with absolutely no knowledge of that history. John Fetterman [D] is literally running his campaign almost entirely by accusing Mehmet Oz [R] of being the sort of person to whom "rootless cosmopolitan" would apply. Insisting it's a dogwhistle in all cases comes off like the people who get mad when "literally" is used figuratively, except the literally person is a Nazi.

It's not the concept literally described by the phrase which means Jews, it's the actual phrase. If all you want is the concept, there are plenty of ways to say it without using those exact words, and it's unlikely you'd stumble upon the words by chance unless you blindly copied it from someone who did use it to mean Jews.

you blindly copied it from someone who did use it to mean Jews.

Suppose I did - does that imply anything? After all, the whole point of a dogwhistle is supposed to be that it's unrecognizable to non-dogs. So I read the term, take it at face value, because the implication is obscured (or because I encountered out of context), think it's a good description, and reuse it without being aware of the original speaker's meaning.

The end result is the same as coming up with it by myself: I'm using the term at face value and it's not a dogwhistle.

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