site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   27633 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 15, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Don't know why you're trying make a mess of history on the matter. Even the regime change wing of the State Department admits of their activities in Russia's backyard and the very thing I'm calling it out for.

I'm not sure why you believe Global Research .ca, an anti-globalization conspiracy website, represents the regime change wing of the State Department, but this would be both an incorrect citation and not a rebuttal to the post on hyper and hypo agency.

And as such, Russia's response is reasonable in turn to US' operations in their sphere of influence.

Similarly, you seem to have missed that point that he was making fun of the argument structure, and not actually making a position that your argeement with would advance your position.

You hit the nail on the head regarding the noncredible source. Often the usage of noncredible sources with demonstrated conspiracism and creative interpretations of reality (moonofalabama, wsws, consortiumnews, ritter mcgregor armchairw etc... and you all haven't even scraped Islamic twitter) is itself proof of scraping the bottom of the barrel to (ironically) write a 5000 word soup of 'logic' and 'facts' to justify an end point already concluded in the headline. Cogency and sourcing wither in the face of ironclad certitude, for evidence and theory are already one and the same to those pissing in the pool they drink from.

I'm not sure why you believe Global Research .ca, an anti-globalization conspiracy website, represents the regime change wing of the State Department, but this would be both an incorrect citation and not a rebuttal to the post on hyper and hypo agency.

And where would you expect to see the other side that vested western interests have an interest in keeping suppressed? CNN? Fox? MSNBC? How about the world's foremost critic of US foreign policy? Or is he just a senile old man at this point?

Similarly, you seem to have missed that point that he was making fun of the argument structure, and not actually making a position that your argeement with would advance your position.

You're the one who obliged with the logic of that statement. Makes it difficult to argue against if you stand with it.

And where would you expect to see the other side that vested western interests have an interest in keeping suppressed? CNN? Fox? MSNBC?

Non-American or European media, to start. Al Jazeera has good production value if you're insistent on English language, but if you're willing to indulge in machine translation then there are entire other continents of geopolitical fans with viewpoints- and memories- outside of anglosphere cultural frameworks.

However, your citation wasn't to have someone on the other side of vested western interests- your citation was on a claim of what the vested western interests were themselves supposed to be admitting. Citing someone accusing them of stuff is not them admitting to... well, you were very vague and generic, to a degree it's not clear what was supposedly being confessed to (or not).

Which, admittedly, was probably the rhetorical technique intended, it was just an odd appeal to authority to neither cite the authority, or anyone with special insight into the authority's position, but then to immediately appeal to an outsider with no authority when the lack of authority was noted.

How about the world's foremost critic of US foreign policy? Or is he just a senile old man at this point?

Chomsky was a senile old man at heart decades ago, given that he's been an anti-american tribalist for longer than you've likely been alive with no particular moral creed to peg consistency to otherwise, and not a particularly impressive one unless you're awed by sophistry. If you think he's the world's foremost critic of US foreign policy, you have a very shuttered view of the world of American critics.

If you want intellectual heft, try the French foreign policy establishment and its advocates. Defiantly not-American enough not to buy into Anglophone tropes by default, but familiar enough with both western cultural contexts and a cultural inclination towards argument structure to be delightfully relevant, and with significant national patronage in order to define themselves against the US in their attempts to align Europe to their interests.

You're the one who obliged with the logic of that statement. Makes it difficult to argue against if you stand with it.

I suspect the difficulty is that you don't seem to recognize- or at least acknowledge- a satirical tone of non-agreement. Neither he nor I were standing with the position, and your continuing insistence that they were (and your word choice in the process) is suggestive that part of the reason why may be that English isn't your first language.

Unironic Chomsky-stanning should be an immediate warning sign of bad-faith intransigence. Manufacturing Consent is the first and definitely not the best book about mass media manipulation attempts within a fragmented yet saturated information ecosystem. He is celebrated for being among the first, thats it. That anti-west types latch onto this book is an appeal to (intellectual) authority that is wholly unearned.

A single pedantic disagreement with your otherwise wholly defendible read of Chomsky is the statement that Chomsky has

no particular moral creed to peg consistency to otherwise

My disagreement is that Chomsky consistent moral creed is to ascribe every ill action in the world to the USAs omnipresent tentacles and to define every ill action as either fulfilment of US actions or someone stumbling in their own attempts to be a champion against the US. Chomsky should be mocked eternally for supporting the Khmer Rouge and Serbia, and his denial of both genocides is just the cherry on top of the incompetence shit cake he keeps insisting on eating. Khmer Rouge was perfectly capable of shitting itself after it antagonized the Viets and Thais and celebrating them as a bastion of socialism in his book 'After the cataclysm' is laughable since it supports the genocidal socialist failure instead of the victorious socialist success of Vietnam. Similarly Chomsky chained himself to the sinking ship of Serb ultranationalism simply because it was not liked by Nato, writing an entire book to whine about how evil NATO only acted because Serbia was continuing the dream of socialism. Even after his pets have been proven to be evil genocidal incompetents Chomsky still deigns to lecture survivors of socialism on why they had no agency, famously getting the entire nation of Czechoslovakia angry at him for claiming that they had things better under communism.

tldr Chomskys worldview is USA bad socialist failures good. anyone citing chomsky as a positive betrays an intransigent bias that is unlikely to be dissuaded.

However, your citation wasn't to have someone on the other side of vested western interests- your citation was on a claim of what the vested western interests were themselves supposed to be admitting.

And it says quite a bit about the integrity of one side of the argument when they won't even fully and accurate represent what the position of the other side is.

Chomsky was a senile old man at heart decades ago, given that he's been an anti-american tribalist for longer than you've likely been alive, and not a particularly impressive one unless you're awed by sophistry. If you think he's the world's foremost critic of US foreign policy, you have a very shuttered view of the world of American critics.

I'm still waiting on the counterargument. If we're essentially at a standoff where either side at liberty to disregard an argument by calling it's proponent a moron, then expect the same kind of dismissive, low effort diatribe from me in return. Otherwise, I see no rebuttal to evaluate.

(If you want intellectual heft, try the French. Defiantly not-American enough not to buy into Anglophone tropes by default, but familiar enough with both western cultural contexts and a cultural inclination towards argument structure to be delightful, and with significant national patronage in order to define themselves against the US in their attempts to align Europe to their interests.)

Let me try the same thing in kind.

"Lol. Sounds like some bullshit to me."

I suspect the difficulty is that you don't seem to recognizing a satirical tone. Neither he nor I were standing with the position, and your continuing insistence that they were (and your word choice in the process) is suggestive that part of the reason why may be that English isn't your first language.

Evidently I did miss the satire. I figured your statements were worth taking seriously and not given in bad faith. I stand corrected.

And it says quite a bit about the integrity of one side of the argument when they won't even fully and accurate represent what the position of the other side is.

Fortunately I am still willing to engage you as to why anti-globalization conspiracy theorist is not a full or accurate representation of what the US State Department position is.

I'm still waiting on the counterargument. If we're essentially at a standoff where either side at liberty to disregard an argument by calling it's proponent a moron, then expect the same kind of dismissive, low effort diatribe from me in return. Otherwise, I see no rebuttal to evaluate.

If you choose to call Chomsky a moron, that's on you. I call him a tribalist and a sophist, but fully recognize his intelligence in his field of competence- which is not geopolitics, but linguistics. (Though I have heard from others in the field that he devolved to non-falsifiables in defense of his fame-earning theories, so it's not particularly relevant.)

Let me try the same thing in kind.

"Lol. Sounds like some bullshit to me."

Good ma'am, clearly you've never had to deal with both French and Government officials in the same conference room presenting why their strategy is the better one.

They'd never be so crass as to swear, but the knives of politeness are all the sharper.

Evidently I did miss the satire. I figured your statements were worth taking seriously and not given in bad faith. I stand corrected.

See? There's the learned language issue. You're using the words, but not matching them to the right contexts and so create the unintended ironies. A more native speaker wouldn't make the prior mistake of making an accusation of not representing another's position after citing a conspiracy theorist deriding another's position.

Fortunately I am still willing to engage you as to why anti-globalization conspiracy theorist is not a full or accurate representation of what the US State Department position is.

Did you even read the content of the article?

If you choose to call Chomsky a moron, that's on you. I call him a tribalist and a sophist, but fully recognize his intelligence in his field of competence- which is not geopolitics, but linguistics. (Though I have heard from others in the field that he devolved to non-falsifiables in defense of his fame-earning theories, so it's not particularly relevant.)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one went right over your head...

See? There's the learned language issue. You're using the words, but not matching them to the right contexts and so create the unintended ironies. A more native speaker wouldn't make the prior mistake of making an accusation of not representing another's position after citing a conspiracy theorist deriding another's position.

Lol. Okay.

Did you even read the content of the article?

Yup. And I even noticed it wasn't by the American State Department, whose own words you were claiming to link to, and then tried to defend not referring to in favor of a detractor's take before taking issue for positions not being accurately reflected.

The article was less interesting than the irony, and not particularly relevant to the post the citation was meant to refute.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one went right over your head...

A common mistake you make, I'm sure.

Lol. Okay.

Okay indeed.

Now, would you like to drop further points to a more defensible motte, or just try one more time for a last word? There aren't many more positions left for you to abandon in the face of challenge, but I doubt I'll see more than a downvote.

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