site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   25765 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In Australia we have the exact same thing with our local indigenous population.

Don’t that indigenous population, much like indigenous Anglos in England, have a right to ‘their’ homeland per Johnson, though? After all, according to the OP, he says:

First, your rights are not obligations. A right is simply an option that you can choose to exercise or not. The obligation pertains to others, who are obliged to get out of your way.

So, do white Australians have to “get out of the way” of natives? The indigeneity ethnat argument isn’t really compatible with settler colonies. The better argument is the Churchillian one, which explicitly allows the natural right of conquest with reference to settler colonies. The problem for ethnonationalists is that it means that their right is not intrinsic, and that if they lose their defeat was probably just.

For example, Jews believed they had a ‘right’ (and destiny) to eventually reclaim Jerusalem for 2,000 years. But it was ultimately material reality that ensured it happened. Of course the Israelis today have a “right” to an ethnostate, but it is a temporal right built on economics, military strength and the relationships built by the Jewish diaspora over centuries, not one based on the claim in the book.

What is the usual (imagined, of course) response to the aboriginal man who demands all non-natives leave Australia? “Well come and take it mate, and if you win it’s yours”, at least if my more conservative Australian acquaintances are to be believed. The police officers can notice, but they also notice that Johnson is incorrect, there is no right to an ethnostate, only the ability to impose one with sufficient credibility and authority.

Lastly, Australian aboriginals aren’t black and are highly genetically and phenotypically distinct from both African and European populations; Africans and Europeans are much more genetically close than either population is to indigenous Australians and Papuans.

Lastly, Australian aboriginals aren’t black and are highly genetically and phenotypically distinct from both African and European populations; Africans and Europeans are much more genetically close than either population is to indigenous Australians and Papuans.

My understanding is that it's close. Yes, there's Denisovan admixture in Aboriginals (previously I thought that that was also in East Asians and thus ruled out as relevant, but I checked in response to this and there's far less of it in Asians), but (sub-Saharan) Africans don't have Neanderthal admixture and have much-longer isolation as far as the H.s.s. part goes.

The Khoisan are likely still more genetically isolated depending on source, but the majority of sub-Saharan Africans aren’t.

Don’t that indigenous population, much like indigenous Anglos in England, have a right to ‘their’ homeland per Johnson, though?

I think he says yes?

But I am also willing to cheer on less optimal forms of ethnonationalism, even petty, chauvinistic, and Left-wing ethnonationalisms, especially if they take the form of separatist movements trying to break up multiethnic states.

It doesn't really make sense either, as you say. Weapons > rights. Rather like the NAP, isn't it! What good is a principle if an armed band come over with the intent of taking all your stuff? You need your own armed band: professional soldiers and a state apparatus to smooth things out.

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