site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   28890 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 11, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You can't get rid of all the "SJ-affiliated" civil service bureaucrats and public-school teachers, because that's practically all of them and there's not enough "non-woke" candidates to take their place. Abolishing college DEI departments and reforming financial aid won't do anything about the near-total lack of right-wing professors.

The teachers and the professors aren't really that big a deal. To fix the teacher problem, bring back the rubber roomers and drop most of the qualification requirements. Maybe cut school hours if there's still a shortage. There isn't really that big a professor problem, since there are plenty of non-SJer STEM professors (particularly if you seek out the ones that were politically purged) and letting political science/philosophy/history/literature/sociology lie fallow for a decade isn't the end of the world (we arguably want there to be less PS and sociology graduates). The bureaucrats are a bigger problem, but I think it's not completely insoluble. As I said, though, this is definitely a "move fast and break things" plan and would have some degree of chaos in the short-term.

These people's hold on power is so strong, so absolute, so insulated from democratic mechanisms, that I simply see no possible way to remove them from power except for killing them.

I mean, I'm not disputing that that's the most likely way for the Blue Tribe to fall. My preferred grand strategy has been and continues to be "get out of cities, plan, and wait for nuclear war to wipe out most of the Blues", as I've noted several times on this site; this kind of root-and-branch would be much easier in a lot of ways with a drastically-reduced Blue Tribe.

drop most of the qualification requirements.

I'm sure that in at least some states, courts could nix this via reference to the state constitution's education guarantee clause.

"get out of cities, plan, and wait for nuclear war to wipe out most of the Blues"

Except I don't think any such war is coming. So what's your "plan b" if it fails to materialize?

Except I don't think any such war is coming.

All the stars are basically aligned for the PRC to make a Taiwan play in the near future, and that probably means nuclear exchange.

So what's your "plan b" if it fails to materialize?

Me personally? Don't have one, would rather lose than go even as far as the plan I laid out. But that plan is more workable than you give it credit for.

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