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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Hit the nail on the head. I will never not be attracted this aesthetic, but have enough first hand experience to know where it leads. I think for a fair amount of guys who have had above average "success" with women (and who can review their experiences thoughtfully and with honesty), there comes a point where they decide to trade high variance and FUN for lower variance stability. In other words; never try to make a ho a housewife, but trade in the hos for a housewife. That's a little crass, but it's the most accurate reflection of what goes in a lot of guys 30s.
But I also think that's all downstream from a larger shift in mindset. At some point, an intelligent person is going to choose between pro-social behavior and libertine personal freedom so long as it doesn't "hurt others." We can quibble over direct vs indirect harm; that's the culture war thread. But if you choose the former (prosocial) you changes all over the place; how you vote, who you date, where you live, etc. Which brings me to the first thing you wrote;
Okay, that's a preference. Enjoy the endless Sam Altmans.
I don't see this as either prosocial or libertarian-libertine. I see this is a sort of hierarchical-authoritarianism. You even use the word "aristocracy" with a pretty loaded subtext. I see this a bad for everyone. Those on the bottom literally get kicked, those at the top are going to fall into hyper-paranoid behavior patterns to try to guarantee their positions and society will stagnate, rot, and collapse. It's the illusion of mastery over human nature when you're really just cultivating the worst parts of it.
I'm reminded of someone in this sphere once describing Francisco Franco versus typical fascist leaders in this (paraphrased) way: "Fascist leaders often saw themselves as the architect of the soul. Franco was just a cop."
I think all authoritarianism and elitism pretty much comes down to this core, that one can, with sufficient will-to-power and unquestionable primacy, have power over what is in a man's heart itself. By contrast, liberalism and progressivism fundamentally surrender that what others do or are is out of one's control, and the differences come down to how to handle that.
I like, and agree, with this.
Totally agree re: liberalism, but, in the case of progressivism I think the case is that while it does "surrender that what others do or are is out of control," it also makes hard right vs. wrong value judgments. Phrased differently, "I can't control what's in another person's heart, but I can damn sure tell (with authority) if it's good or bad and, therefore, if that person is good or bad."
And that's a massive, massive problem because, followed to its logical extreme, you get to genocide. No, I don't think that's hyperbolic. From some of the speech laws in the UK to BLM in the US, progressive movements move quickly down the path of "disagreement with us is a clear demonstration of evil." If something is truly, deeply "evil" you can easily deduce what the next logical step would be in "dealing" with it.
As an (aspiring) TradCath, I am actually very much okay with hard good vs. bad value judgement - but only in a transcendental sense. I have no problem thinking someone is evil but will wait for The Big Man Upstairs to mete out whatever punishments are warranted in the afterlife. Back on planet earth, I definitely do not want The State to be the high moral arbiter. That's insanely dangerous.
I am not a squishy "live and let level" humanist moral relativist. I believe there is definitely right and wrong, good and evil. I think it's often plain to see which is which. But a political ideology shouldn't be the rubric for that judgement, and certainly not the enforcement executive for perceived transgressions. Progressivism doubles down on all of that by creating a kind of secular quasi-religion. It's a cult, and we're seeing it go through what all cults do; internal strife and self-destruction because of untenable internal contradictions.
More options
Context Copy link
That created the loudest record scratch in my head I've heard in a while.
As far as I can tell this is precisely backwards. The entire point of progressivism is to remake human nature. What else do you call it's unrelenting obsession with equity, insistence that everything is a social construct, galaxy-brained ideas like having social workers fight crime? I've had progressives tell me point-blank that human nature does not exist. Even liberalism isn't free from this, though it's notably toned down.
To be sure there are right-wing equivalents of this. Fascism was a revolutionary ideology, so I can grant you the argument there - though I'd note that this is largely where Hlynka's alt-right progressive meme - but for more traditional forms of authoritarianism / elitism, their entire point is to respond to human nature, rather than acting like you can engineer it.
Thank you, I spent hours trying to come up with a "new soviet man was noble savage all along, is much surprise" joke.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link