site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   29233 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 19, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

These people belong to civilizations that have existed for longer than the West has been the West.

But you are missing the point. They can maintain their own social structures and idioms, but can't maintain Western ones. Only Westerners can do that by definition.

I think Gobineau goes too far when he says that "civilization is incommunicable" as some individuals can clearly be assimilated, but collectively he is right. If you swapped out Western and Eastern elites in an instant, neither society would be able to function correctly anymore.

The racial division you bemoan is the cause of much disarray, but it is also the consequence of a multicultural society that has refused to impose a common culture in the name of Liberal ideals. And as we can see, economic success cannot alone mend this gap, only paper over it.

Eastern countries with homeless people are those that are very poor in comparison with the US. Rich Asian countries like Singapore do not have a homeless problem whatsoever. None of the countries have psychotic and aggressive homeless.

The homeless pathology of big American cities is totally unique and there's simply no way to explain it by blaming Asians. Especially since the voters and government is mostly white people - the "swapping" you talk about is a figment.

I'm taking this swap as an hypothetical to illustrate the social upheaval that is created by radically altering the makeup of a society over a short period of time. The UAE, Singapore, these are multicultural societies that are successful and orderly. They also require a great deal of authority and legitimacy to maintain.

This, in turn, require long lasting institutions that are either a monopoly of a specific ethnic group or the product of ruthless objective competition, which is essentially the same as it synthesizes a bureaucrat class that becomes its own ethnos (see China).

Without this chain, you get South Africa.

Now if you decide to understand pointing out this reality as "blaming Asians", I'm afraid that's on you.

The "radically altered makeup" of Seattle has precious little to do with this considering that it's whites who are most enamored with pro homeless politics.

Singapore's parliament is a mix of Indians, Chinese, and Malays. It's not a homogeneous elite and in a (de facto) one party state there's not much objective competition to get on the ballot.

in a one party State there's not much competition to get on the ballot

Look I understand you've been taught that your political formula does this in school, but there's very little reason to believe this is true. In fact I'm more ready to consider Aristotle when he argues the opposite is true.

I think it requires a lot more intelligence and studying to become a civil servant in Singapore than in Seattle. And indeed that this is how it's elite self selects in lieu of ethnic preference.

Civil servant? We're talking about elected positions. Please post the objective requirements to get elected in Singapore.

We're talking about elected positions.

No we're not, we're talking about the ruling elite, which is not the same thing.

You can't vote the elite of a society out of power. The people who run things, make actual policy decisions are rarely the same people that nominally have the power to do so. I don't like this as a formalist myself but it's just a fact of life.

I mean come on, do you really think Joe Biden runs the United States? That Vladimir Putin decides things on his own without large constraints from his stakeholder's interests?

If we're going to have a serious discussion about the sociocultural dynamics of how a society functions we first have to agree to basic Machiavellian premises. There's an infinite amount of fictional stories you can tell yourself about what's going on, if we don't ground ourselves in pragmatic, value free analysis of power, this conversation is pointless.

What does Joe Biden have to do with crazy hobos in Seattle?

The elected officials of Seattle do not object to the status quo and do not promise any changes. The voters of Seattle do not mind and continue to elect those officials. There's no need to invoke Machiavellian epicycles when the elected officials and electorate are in total agreement on the issue.

It's not the "deep city hall" that keeps the hobos on the street, it's the vox populi.

There is no such thing as "the people" much less "a voice" for this nonexistent entity. The voters of Seattle do not elect the officials, the officials have themselves elected by them.

If a magical dictator took power in Seattle and cleaned the streets by force, the same people that vote for the current representatives that do nothing about it would support him wholeheartedly. There is no point trying to attribute any will to the masses and any attempt to do so renders political analysis nonsensical.

In Seattle and Portland it is whites who vote most zealously for the radical left. Blacks and Asians are both more moderate.

Seattle's district hasn't elected a Republican representative since the seventies, it is fully a one party polity. The only distinction is within flavors of democrats. In my experience, the most pro-homeless people are white, and Asians have much less sympathy for letting people colonize the streets.

You've elided the point. Even in uber-liberal Seattle, the share of Whites voting for Democrats is lesser than the share of Asians, of Blacks, of Hispanics, of...

I haven't elided the point.

Nobody who wants to win in Seattle runs as a Republican. Do you think it's the blacks' fault that Seattle hasn't elected a Republican in 44 years? Or the asians'? No, this is the will of the whites who live there.

I wasn't able to find a lot of good data, but here is one post: https://www.google.com/amp/s/southseattleemerald.com/2022/12/09/how-race-and-class-converged-in-the-2022-elections-in-seattle/%3famp

However, those rightward shifts among BIPOC are not uniform. Asian-Americans in South Seattle are shifting harder to the right than Black people are, which follows national trends. Additionally, People of Color in South Seattle and SKC are disproportionately getting redder whereas People of Color in the Eastside suburbs are actually shifting blue. This means class is a catalyst for Republican gains among People of Color: working class voters of color are shifting red while wealthier voters of color are not, but even getting bluer.

This is especially noticeable in the Chinatown-International District, where GOP fear tactics have helped shift this neighborhood dramatically to the right (although, noticeably, the Little Saigon part of the CID got bluer while the Chinese parts west of I-5 got much redder).

That is, parts of Seattle that are more likely to vote for Republicans are those that live in areas with less white people.

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