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 -
When some random schizo tried to kill nancy pelosi and ended up severely injuring her husband, plenty of people on the right spread some bizarre spurned gay lover conspiracy and made fun of the victim for it. There were people on this forum taking it somewhat seriously. I don't think any side gets a high ground on this.
Trump himself has mocked the incident.
More options
Context Copy link
The gay lover thing was in retrospect dumb, but wasn’t he quite literally a gay prostitute with moonbattish far left politics?
At least at the time of his attack against Paul Pelosi, he had far-right views. He had a blog with a lot of pro-QAnon, antivax, and election denial stuff.
More options
Context Copy link
i don't see anything about him being a prostitute. he did bounce from being a nudist activist to an antivax election denier though
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That is not the same thing for a variety of reasons. No one was applauding the attempt; Pelosi is not equivalent to a leading presidential candidate; the gay lover conspiracy was based on the men apparently knowing knowing each other and standing side by side when police arrived
More options
Context Copy link
The left also immediately tried to make the right wear the Pelosi beating. Controlling narratives does matter. The left lives off this.
If a trans women is killed by his lover we get articles about the rise in maga fueled transviolence. If black men start beating up Asians it’s because of white supremacists maga fueled Asian hate. If some rope is found in a nascar garage near a black man it’s maga fueled KKK racism.
There is a real need to control the narrative quickly while it’s in the news cycle. If Pelosi’s attacker was his gay lover and you didn’t fight for the narrative then half the country 4 years later would believe it was maga because that is the story that ran while it was in the news cycle.
Hold on a second. The attacker in that case had spent years and years living in a Berkeley polyamory cult doing drugs in a shitted out bus in somebody’s yard.
If he ended up schizophrenic and convinced he was helping Donald Trump somehow, it was basically a direct result of democratic politics, and is exactly the type of thing that “MAGA” is fighting against.
The reason people were critical of/making fun of the Pelosis was that this was their own schizophrenic chickens coming home to roost. I also didn’t see any sort of wishing that he had succeeded, just a lot of sort of “you eat what you grow” sort of things.
Replace 'democratic politics' with 'Republicans' and 'Berkeley polyamory cult' with 'AR-15s and gun control' and you've got yourself the bog-standard (brought to you by Stephen King!) leftist argument that Trump's own pro-gun policies led to his assassination. It's stupid when they do it, and it's stupid when you do it too.
Policies at the federal/state level have such broad impacts that nearly any event can be linked back to something one of the parties did.
If somebody said “well this is why we want stronger gun restrictions!” I’d sympathize with them (but disagree). I’ve even seen people wondering out loud if this would cause Trump to change his stance on gun control at all.
That’s all different than “I wish my political enemy had been assassinated…to protect democracy.”
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, except for the fact that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right, and gun ownership has many legitimate uses. Hard to say the same about open air drug markets that permanently break people's brains and fester like a boil on society.
My righteous policy of AR-15s for self-defense versus your policy of open air drug markets that permanently break people's brains is a Straussian conjugation if I've ever heard one.
Your description of both 'policies' or platforms is massively lacking in nuance and accuracy, and in both cases ignores the tradeoffs involved. Pretending that gun ownership is an unalloyed good while being soft-on-crime is an unalloyed ill is just silly.
One is a god given right that is enumerated in the constitution, also heavily policed and regulated. The other is a criminal enterprise lacking legal basis at any level, ignored by the police and authorities.
Oh, you can't tell which I'm talking about because they're equivalent?
Yeah, pretty much.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Did you mean Russel conjugation?
Ah, thank you for the correction.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is it? Then please enlighten me as to the benefits of permissiveness towards illicit open air drug markets.
I'm skeptical of my ability to do so, and loath to try.
But firstly, I'll note that we were discussing:
The link between this and open-air drug markets is tenuous to non-existent (was he buying his drugs at one of your markets...?) at least as far as I'm aware of the story of David Depape, though I can see how discussing drug markets rather than sticking to the example the OP gave is much more convenient for you. As far as Democratic policies go, do you want the cops to round up and jail polyamorists for life? Anyone who uses something harder than marijuana? People living in old buses? And that failing to do so means that when David Depape reads a bunch of conspiracy theories about the Jews and pizzagate on facebook, well, the Pelosis just had it coming? As well blame Republicans for not being willing to censor obvious disinformation that sent him off the deep end, both positions are equally stupid.
Not even mentioning the fact that Democratic politicians are elected on these 'soft on crime' platforms, and are presumably executing the will of the majority - particularly in the aftermath of Floyd. It's not clear to me why they should be murdered by drug addicts because their constituencies support 'soft on crime' policies.
But whatever, you don't want to talk about that, right? You want to score points. So no, I don't support 'open-air drug markets,' you are correct, but also nobody has a pro-drug market position. I assume you mean people are 'soft on crime' or against prosecution of drug offenses, and the mess in SF/Philly is the byproduct. But the tradeoff of cracking down on crime will be more citizens incarcerated and paying those costs, more fatherless households, more Rodney Kings and George Floyds (and associated riots) which you may not care about or even see as a good thing, but most of your fellow citizens disagree with.
It's clear the pendulum has swung too far in one direction and a correction is coming/already here. But America is not Singapore, and (this is conjecture on my part) I believe that most Americans value freedom and liberty such that they're willing to allow some level of crime and homelessness. Pushing your argument to the extreme means that any politician that isn't pro-social-panopticon deserves to be murdered by the criminals for their soft-on-crime policies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It turns out you can't freely substitute things in an argument that are not at all similar and expect the truth value to remain the same. Perhaps you can substitute "republican" for "democratic", but "Berkely polyamory cults" is not similar to "AR-15s and gun control".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Centrists get high ground on this.
I've been consistently anti-violence, anti-terrorism, anti-riot, anti-extremism, etc, my entire life. Every gives centrists crap for not getting things done, but some things are better undone, and some better things would actually get done if it were possible to get more sane centrist candidates elected.
I have the high ground Anakin. Don't try it.
"I have the moral high ground" says man who lives in decaying society.
Refusing to participate is also a choice. Passivity is not centrism. If you're not actively trying to enforce norms against political violence (of either the remove employment or remove earlobe kinds) you're not a centrist, you're just politically irrelevant.
No more or less than the man who yells "Trump deserves to die" and then doesn't shoot at him is politically irrelevant rather than an extremist. I'm not a political activist, but neither are the vast majority of people, and yet all the voices do add up. An awful lot of activists and politicians and media are emboldened by the prevalence of people supporting them and saying the same thing. Rather than being one more of the millions of voices shouting "you're scum, you deserve to be killed" to their political opponents, I am one of the thousands shouting "No you. You are scum, you deserve to be shamed and mocked but not killed, not because of which side you're on but because you are an uncivilized thug who resorts to violence over words." If it were reversed, if there were millions of us and thousands of them, a lot less violence would happen because they would find less comfort and confidence and public support.
Activism is useless, and in many cases actively harmful, unless you're actually supporting the right cause. Even if my words turn out to be entirely useless because nobody listens to me, literal 0 is still higher than a negative number. And if I'm lucky then maybe my words and my sane representation of ideas that are usually misrepresented by insane extremists will help people realize that their political opponents aren't all nutjobs, even if some of them are, and be less violent and more forgiving as a result.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I feel like this is a little too convenient.
Centrists get crap because they are perceived as supporting the status quo. Therefore, any sins that are part of the tapestry of the status quo get imputed to centrists, because whether they say they support them or not, they are perceived as being useful idiots for whoever has the power to make the status quo a certain way, and keep it that way.
If a libertarian ardently believes that taxes are theft, then centrists support government theft. If a dominionist theocrat believes that anything but a Christian government is a subversion of God's will, then centrists subvert God's will. If a woke progressive believes that any policy that is not aiming to end racism is itself racist, then centrists are racist.
I certainly think a kind of institutionalist centrism can have the high ground compared to partisan electoral politics in many cases, but I think telling people who believe in change of some kind that you have the high ground is going to fall on deaf ears.
More options
Context Copy link
That is one of the satisfactions of being a centrist or moderate, yes. We may not get to enjoy the extremes of partisan frenzy, but the enthusiasm of the moment burns out, and the radical ends of the spectrum overextend and end up looking like fools, we're the ones left to nod knowingly and pick up the pieces.
I realise this comes off as rather smug, and maybe isn't that constructive, but I think there is some value in occasionally reminding ourselves of the merits of even the 'boring', conventional positions. "Actually Political Violence Bad" is not a position that's going to excite anyone, but it has repeatedly proven itself, and those who stuck to it even when it would have been easy to come off as edgy or cool by doing otherwise may deserve some praise for their restraint.
Not from me, probably, because I shouldn't praise my own group, but I'd argue that knowing when not to speak, when not to act, is a kind of virtue in itself.
To that I'd add the ability to condemn two things at once. There's always a strong temptation for partisans of one side or the other to say "but it's different when we do it". BLM riots bad, January 6 good. Cancelling the left bad, cancelling the right good. Extrajudicial violence bad for them, but good for us. But if you're in the centre and you're devoted to having principles... just say that it's all bad. Make no excuses. What they must not do, we must not do either. What we may do, they may do as well.
I wouldn't say this is smug, but a bit high on your own supply. I do want a world where each tribe can sleep easy, and build their own thing in peace, but tell me how we're going to get thee by freaking out over people getting the smallest possible dose of their own medicine. It's an offer about as compelling as not returning fire in the Ukraine war.
That's fair - I admit I'm indulging in a bit of backslapping here. I suppose it's a bit foolish of me. Still, every now and then taking a moment to feel positive about one's self and perspective isn't that much of a sin, I hope.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Centrism is only good if the center is good. A centrist was pro-Hitler, pro-Stalin, pro-Mao, pro-FDR, pro-Reagan, pro-war on drugs, pro-mass incarceration, pro-Iraq War, pro-KKK, extremely racists, extremely reverse racism. They were likely pro a lot of things I would consider good too.
It’s an intellectually lazy philosophy of not taking the time to think thru an issue and form an opinion. A lot of the time you are not able to form a wise opinion so it gets tough. Being pro-Iraq war seems reasonable then because Cheney did some so CIA games and laundered false intel to the American people that you couldn’t verify.
Centrism is just assuming the current Overton window is correct. But the Overton window moves and thus makes a centrists opinion incompatible with views a centrist would have had just a few short years ago.
I'm not defining 'centrism' here as 'the axiomatic assumption that the correct position is always in the centre of the Overton window'. I don't think that's unfairly redefining it on the fly? We probably wouldn't define leftism or rightism as the axiomatic belief that the correct position is always the furthest left or furthest right idea. Rather, we understand these words to refer to general tendencies or ideological leans. We also tend to associate them with specific embodied tribes (e.g. Democrats, Republicans), or with specific ideologies, which are often more complex than can be expressed with a binary spectrum (e.g. socialism, liberalism, conservatism).
So let me say what I mean when I say that I consider myself a centrist or moderate. (I don't feel it's particularly worth hair-splitting between those two terms. I think they both successfully communicate the idea of someone who is skeptical of both the left and the right, but willing to listen to and adopt ideas from either.)
Firstly, and this is what I think I alluded to most clearly in the above, I mean a dispositional skepticism towards enthusiasm or radicalism. I adopt a posture that is skeptical of passion in politics, or people who are deeply invested in an organised political vision. It is a posture that favours pragmatic, incremental reforms, and tends to regard big intellectual theories or visions as inherently suspect. There is a sense in which this is just small-c conservatism, and I'll wear that, but I think that as in practice the word 'conservative' in politics means something different, it's reasonable to avoid it.
Secondly, I mean in terms of practical allegiance and identification, sitting somewhere in between the two dominant tribes. American politics are radically polarised, and for most people adopting positions has more to do with team loyalty than anything else. Feelings of affection for one team and hostility to the other are therefore the dominant force in American politics. By identifying as centrist or moderate, what I want to communicate is that that's not what I want to do. Rather, I am trying to signal openness to a range of perspectives, and an attitude of noncommittal friendliness to people in either tribe.
Thirdly, to the extent that there is an ideology of moderation, I think it's the conscious knowledge that passion tends to outrun reason; that human judgement is fallible and that my internal sense of my own correctness is probably flawed; that good decision-making often requires input from different perspectives, even adversaries, and collaboration; that personal restraint and humility are virtues; and that no idea or proposal should be allowed to pass without a proper attempt to criticise it.
This piece makes a lot of the same case. Irrespective of any particular issue (some of which I do skew more conservative on than that guy), there is a case for moderation as political practice as well as moderation is ideological or attitudinal stance.
“ I adopt a posture that is skeptical of passion in politics, or people who are deeply invested in an organised political vision.”
This just feels like how I described centrism. Apolitical. Lack of vision. Just taking center of Overton window.
I know Trump is described as a radical rightist. His political views though are largely to the left of Bill Clinton. He favors less mass incarceration. He’s pro-choice (though aligned with Pro-Life judges), he’s pro gay marriage. He’s largely anti-market - trade protectionism. The current right largely backs ‘90s style race relations.
Politics is a real thing. It effects people’s lives. It’s very important to national and personal success. I just played basketball with a few Venezuelans. It matters. They are living in a foreign land because politics were bad at home.
The thing about centrists is they actually encourage Overton window pushing. If 60% of voters are just going to vote for the middle of the Overton window then the correct strategy is to push the Overton window wide. And then the median view comes closer to where you want it.
Take abortion as an issue. Right now the Overton window has one it’s right ban abortion. On its left abortion till 9 months. The centrist position is basically 16 weeks and then banned. If my goal is to ban abortion I need to get discussing the negatives of birth control into the public conscience as a respectable position. Then the centrist position becomes ban abortion.
The left did this with gay marriage. They made pronouns and gender surgery for kids into the Overton window. Now nobody questions gay marriage when in 2005 it was not passable as legislation.
If you had a hard view of abortion after 16 months is bad then if my side pushed to ban birth control then the right would lose elections. Instead centrism makes polarization beneficial because moving the Overton window moves the centrist position.
I... at no point said that I default to the centre of the Overton Window on any issue, or that centrists should do that? Dynomight actually made a case for moderation as the best way to achieve change - he makes the argument, I think correctly, that gay marriage won via moderation, not via radicalism.
As it happens, I oppose gay marriage, which the last I checked puts me way outside the Overton Window. Moderation or centrism in the sense in which I am identifying with it is not a list of policy positions, or a reflexive determination to always adopt the position exactly halfway between the Republican and Democratic platforms. It is a dispositional skepticism of passion politics and radicalism, a deliberate openness to the possibility of being persuaded by people on either team, and an attitude of caution and intellectual humility.
What does it mean to be a moderate and oppose gay marriage? It means that I think it's bad policy, but also that I think that, say, the postliberal Caesarist types are dangerous rogues. Or to pick something coded the other side of politics, it's the same way I can support, say, universal health care, but think that the democratic socialists are a bunch of ineffective muppets high on their own supply. It means a distinction between the policies I envision happening in an ideal world, and the practical ways in which I approach doing politics.
I will be honest I then have no idea what you mean by moderate.
The post liberal caeser types by your definition of moderate I believe they are moderate. Vance has said he wouldn’t have counted the 2020 vote and wants to dismantle the beaucracy. You know from his background that he’s well thought out both camps. It is in his lived experience from where he grew up to having had very leftist friends at Yale. Which is far different that some who grew up on the UES and went to Yale law. He has clearly been a card carrying member of both tribes.
The fact you used the Caeserist types those are probably the most moderate because those tend to be some of the most well read people on the political map. Who have read and thought about everything.
I don’t think the conventional definition of radical versus moderate is unrelated to political positions.
I feel like most people would consider Peter Thiel, Yarvin, Hanania as radical right, but they all feel like moderates to me by the way you define moderate. I use the word grey tribe for these types.
Without more knowledge on your beliefs you sound like a radical right grey triber based on being anti-gay marriage.
Well, as I've commented before, I understand myself to be Blue Tribe in the original sense of the term - recall that per the original 'Outgroup' post, there were explicitly Blue Tribe Republicans and Red Tribe Democrats. (Though I am not American.) I tend to think of the colour tribes as being about manner or about social milieu more than they are about explicit religious beliefs. I know I'm not Red Tribe because I grew up thinking of the kinds of people who owned guns and drove pick-up trucks and did blue-collar work and lacked university degrees and went to evangelical churches as gross low-status people that would be embarrassed to be confused with. I'm pretty sure I'm not Grey Tribe because I think the whole Silicon Valley technologist/rationalist mentality is gross. I may be a political defector from the Blue Tribe, but they're my native tongue, as it were.
Anyway, maybe it would help if I say that I think of moderation as something more procedural, rather than a substantive political position? Defined purely in terms of substance, the centre or moderate position is, as you say, a constantly shifting target which it would be absurd to invest in. Procedurally, however, I would say moderation is characterised by a willingness to listen and make deals with any of the major camps in the political landscape, while being reluctant to fully identify with any of those camps.
By the Caesarists, I'm thinking of people like the self-identified postliberals - they tend to be big fans of Orban, and supportive of some kind of strongman politics, where a visionary leader is necessary to reorder the state and effect a top-down transformation of society along more virtuous lines. Think of Patrick Deneen's aristopopulism ("Aristotelian ends by Machiavellian means"), or Vermeule's authoritarianism, or the "We need our own Putin" sentiment that was heard in 2016. Wolfean yearning for a 'Christian prince' is another version of the same idea, with the main difference being presenting itself as Protestant rather than Catholic. As a moderate, I am dispositionally skeptical of any political project that starts with the idea that we just need to get our guy into power and then crush our enemies. This is as true for the right-authoritarian-populists as it is for the left-authoritarian-populists.
Personally, my preferred politics is more the idea that virtue, community-building, pro-social behaviour, etc., are embedded in customs and the unspoken, unwritten rules of local community life more than they are in legal codes, and there's something inherently dangerous in the yearning for a powerful centralised authority that will authoritatively enforce our moral vision on all. I think we need is closer to the project Deneen sketches at the end of Why Liberalism Failed (i.e. small, local self-governing communities, rooted in the concrete realities of their lives), rather than the strongman fantasies of Regime Change. To that end what I favour is a limited, constrained central government that focuses, rather than on setting the conditions for the good life itself, making possible (but not mandatory) the kind of organic civic renewal that I hope for. Think more distributist-libertarian, on the political spectrum.
I think this probably sits well with a kind of old-fashioned liberal ethic, but it means that I take liberalism per se to be necessary but not sufficient for a healthy polity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What would you consider a moderate vs a centrist? A moderate being someone temporarily in the political middle, while a centrist is someone who chooses to be there? Vocabulary might matter here more than usual. I'm not sure I quite agree with your characterization of the philosophy, such that it is, as intellectually lazy, and think it describes some sort of mythical centrist that does not actually exist.
Like, isn't he just describing a regular person who calls balls as he sees them without bandwagoning too much? Someone cautious of getting too over-engaged in partisan passion? Additionally, merely being in the center of two extremes does not imply inaction, though some degree of approval of the status quo might be implied. Both extremes want action, so at least in some cases if you average the two, don't you still get action of some kind? Of course some political positions are a simple tug-of-war, but I feel like most are more like you're traveling on the freeway, and trying to decide which exit to take, or maybe that you're deciding where to eat and someone says Chinese and someone else says Burgers and you end up at a Japanese fusion place that isn't quite what either pictured but still tastes good. IDK, I'm bad with analogies but you get the picture. The idea is, a centrist option can still be an actual blended action, not just inaction due to indecision.
I think one can distinguish between centrist (ie someone who believes the truth is between two alleged poles as a truism) and Burkean conservatism (change slowly as you might break things). One can be a progressive Burkean, liberal Burkean, libertarian Burkean, nationalist Burkean, etc.
That is, the first is about identifying the two poles and plopping yourself in the middle. The second has a vision about the world they want but argues going very slowly towards that goal.
Both tend to favor status quo but have different failure modes.
I'm happy to grant that Burkean conservatism is one of the things I'm describing when I praise centrism or moderation, yes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think moderate and centrists are roughly the same and synonyms.
I have nothing against a centrists. You can live a happy life in country with bad government. You show up to work everyday, marry the cute girl, impregnate your wife a few times, and raise a few good kids. It’s a fine noble life.
But it does not give them some moral high ground on politics or an enlightened view. It’s hoping politics works out in a way that doesn’t ruin their life.
Not everyone needs to be airplane engineers. And know every intricate detail. You can still ride the airplane, but you are hoping the dude at Boeing is a good engineer.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Part of that was fueled by the assumption that the Speaker of the House's home would be secure, and thus this attacker inside the home must have been an invited guest.
Maybe we're just generally bad at protecting high profile people.
I'm open to the argument that the secret service is like the TSA - security theatre that's there to reassure people rather than a meaningful protection.
More options
Context Copy link
And part was fueled by this having taken place after Smollett and Whitmer and Covington and Fine People and whatever other media hoaxes I'm forgetting. The right had been in too exhausted a wolf-has-been-cried-way-too-many-times state for "this is actually real and bad" to even be in their top 5 possibilities of what's going on
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link