site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   25167 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 29, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is just like communists who adore their meme about how every other division between people is an invention of infinitely powerful capitalists as a distraction from the class struggle, the only one that the communists insist matters.

Not exactly. I think all divisions, including this one, are based on some kernel of truth, but while we can probably live with race war, class war, religious war, or anything else you come up with, we're kind of fucked if we don't resolve the sex war.

we're kind of fucked if we don't resolve the sex war.

Well, not fucked, really.

Why? I think it was Jim who suggested to block oxygen to every newborn female's brain long enough for irreparable damage to sapience but not long enough for death. "We" can continue like that indefinitely. Or if instead the other sex manages to win decisively, that's a weak proof that they also could continue in this manner by doing the same to boys.

Aside from the fact that the far likelier scenario is a stalemate resulting in extinction, as we (not)fuck ourselves to death, it's because it wouldn't go the way you think it would go. If you want to see a completely male- or female-dominated society, look at the gay/lesbian community. Even if you crack reproduction, neither of these is capable of maintaining civilization, IMO.

look at the gay/lesbian community. Even if you crack reproduction, neither of these is capable of maintaining civilization, IMO.

Without a way to reproduce they cannot evolve towards goal of maintaining civilization, maybe cracking reproduction would make them to (and possibly introduce a schism)

Modern community? Or historical? It would suck to exist in Sparta, but I've read enough of female designs for the society to know it would suck vastly more. Culling of men, castration, loss of rights, the usual.

I’m not sure I’ve read you correctly, but if you’re suggesting women want to implement those things, you need to bring receipts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto etc. etc. etc.

Okay, can you list the "etc.", "etc.", and "etc."? Because whenever I've seen this claim the reference point is always the SCUM Manifesto, and that sort of a thing kind of makes one think there are, in fact, no other reference points.

There is a wide array of female authors providing similar intentions, just look for any quote compilation by a naive MRA. I'll refrain from giving my favorite one, I dislike having my disposable accounts connected.

Everyone claiming that "feminists want to castrate all men" cite the same small handful of mentally ill fringe figures, e.g., Valerie Solano, Andrea Dworkin, etc.

The number of women who actually, unironically want to "cull men and castrate them" is probably considerably less than the number of men who actually, unironically take KulakRevolt's or Dread Jim's ideas about lobotomizing/turning women into sex slaves seriously.

More comments

Well just spin up another. How is this a thing? Unless you're writing man hating screeds from 40 years ago you're not going to DOX yourself. I swear...

Actual longhouse societies don’t look like that; men sit around gambling and using substances all day while everyone lives off of the women’s gardening in a mud hut.

Or historical?

I'm not qualified to debate these. There's enough fog of war about issues I've seen with my own eyes, so I'm not sure how much it helps to bring millenia-old civilizations into the conversation. Also historical vs. hypothetical example is not a fair comparison.

Godwin's Law fell into abeyance, so I feel comfortable asking: would you call the dangers of Third Reich hypothetical after the publication of Mein Kampf but before Hitler took power? When enemies say what they want to do to me, I'd rather take them at their word.

I see where you're coming from, but I'd say nazism was an ideology, not an ethnicity. The comparison then would be to feminism, not to women.

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