site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   37165 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 22, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The last AC10 book review is real fun, as the strange phenomenon of Trump fan fiction “Real Raw News” is reviewed. It is a universe in which Trump only pretended to relinquish power, but kept control of the US military to court marshal and execute his (traitorous) enemies. Did you know that both Bill and Hillary Clinton are dead? They were detained by special elite soldiers and tried for their crimes.

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-real-raw-news

I work in the broader world of American right-of-center politics, and we encounter Real Raw News believers constantly. We get emails from people who confidently insist the public-facing news of the day is fake, and the truth about the events at Gitmo will soon be revealed. At public Q&A events, we’ve fielded questions from genuinely nervous and worried people, who complain about their friends losing hope and being blackpilled by the news, and want to know why there hasn’t been more effort to share what’s “really” going on. A friend of mine who served in the Trump administration has described attending parties where, when he mentioned looking for a post-admin job, he received knowing looks and wink-wink-nudge-nudge remarks from people signaling they knew what was “really” going on. Somehow and someway, a lot of people believe or half-believe or badly want to believe this stuff.

I didn’t know the site, but was surprised of the many hundred comments under most articles. Most comments seem like they are into the joke, but the review shows that at least some want to suspend their disbelief very very hard.

It also examines how the narrative had to be adjusted over time, like a comic book universe for Batman or The Simpsons has timeless parts which are static, for example Bart being perpetually in fourth grade, but the world does stay up to date and the characters history has to be regularly retconned (in a few years the boomer parents Homer&Marge will need to be born in the 90s and are then ostensibly part of Generation Z…).

In the early days of RRN, the military was firmly behind Trump and any implication that Biden held the powers of commander-in-chief was a media-fueled sham. But as time has passed, Trump being the “real” commander-in-chief over a loyal military has evolved into a reality where there are two American militaries, a “White Hat” faction loyal to Trump and “Black Hats” loyal to Biden. Early stories implied the White Hats were more numerous, but recent stories have implied the opposite, with the White Hats an elite force that often wins battles decisively while badly outnumbered. A secret purge has gradually become a secret civil war

The review also theorizes a bit why such conspiracy theories are popular:

I actually think the reverse side of this explains things like the durability of Russiagate: If you’re a normal American liberal, everything Trump says is offensive and piggish, but to justify their level of disdain for them, many needed to elevate his evil to the level of treason, even if that never really made any sense. It can't just be that Trump is an egotistical jerk or a narcissist or whatever. He's got to be a traitor who's going to end American democracy.

Very curious and bizarre corner of the Internet I did not know about.

I am very conservative, probably even by this community's standards (though I like The Jews...I just wished they stopped voting against their interests). Some of my friend groups are very conservative. I have two friends in two separate friend groups who had immediate family members in the Capitol on Jan 6. And yet, I don't know anyone who even knows anyone who believes QAnon or RRN. If it is genuinely popular/believed, it is in niche conservative groups that my bubbles don't happen to overlap with. I lean towards genuine belief being quite rare, with a fair bit of QAnon talking points being repeated for the LOLs.

I do think that any belief or interest in these highly bizarre theories does reflect a broader rejection or negation of the mainstream narrative, which in turn evidences the domination of the mainstream narrative. We don't have true epistemological competition. We have the consensus. It is the water we swim in. It is the universal milieu. I tend to roll my eyes at mainstream hand-wringing over "misinformation" or "alternative facts" as if the disseminators or believers in these alternative narratives are so ensconced in these bubbles that they have no access to the enlightened narrative. This is just not true. Simply by existing I am aware of my expected place in ensuring the smooth path for progress along the arc of history. DEI is good, certain neo-reactionaries such as Musk notwithstanding. The future is female. Bring your whole self to work (but only if you are gay or black...not if you are a Christian).

Everything is liberal, and it cannot be escaped. In short, we have one narrative. Everything else is an anti-narrative. Anti-narratives can be true (I happen to think some weak forms of the anti-narrative are closer to the truth than the narrative), but they are all going to be compelling to those who reject the narrative. To some extent, the more extreme the anti-narrative, the bigger the "up yours" to the narrative.

Uber-conservative housewives were really into Qanon in 2020 but after the military didn't intervene to force Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2021 they dropped it.

In your opinion, how are The Jews voting against their interests? Other people seem to think The Jews are voting according to their interests way too much.

I heard versions of the "Trump didn't stop being president" "The military retained power" "wars with FEMA over data centers" thing a few times from different people in 2020, but it all more or less went away by 2021.

I was never dumb enough to fall for this kind of thing, but for the record, I see the appeal, for people who are better at deceiving themselves. My great disappointment with the Trump presidency was that I wanted many elites - probably at least tens of thousands of them - rapidly publicly executed for their great and horrific Satanic treason. And for a brief historical moment, I was optimistic enough to think Trump might be willing and able to do that; "you'd be in jail", etc.

(Still not convinced, years later, that Pizzagate was actually fake. You've most likely been sold a bill of goods about it being ridiculous and unevidenced.)

Anyway, I was young and dumb then - I had hope and energy for politics - but I remember that feeling. And it's made it awfully surreal for me to see the right wing as a whole, in the wake of the Trump assassination attempt, citing norms of civility and how you're not supposed to want enemy politicians dead. So much has been memoryholed. The young right-wing movement really has been eaten by the establishment.

Out of curiosity, do you have any examples of a country where a leader rapidly and publicly executed tens of thousands of elites and things went well afterwards (e.g. the country did not descend into civil war and standard of living did not decline substantially)? I ask because my inclination is to believe that such an action would have horrible consequences and typically only occurs in countries that are (or are about to become) basket cases—the French revolution or the USSR in the 1920s and 30s. However, I am not knowledgeable enough to be certain my impression is historically accurate.

Out of curiosity, do you have any examples of a country where a leader rapidly and publicly executed tens of thousands of elites and things went well afterwards (e.g. the country did not descend into civil war and standard of living did not decline substantially)?

Most mainland European countries in 1946.

Only a few dozen of the most senior surviving Nazis were executed. The vast majority (in excess of 98%, certainly) of the elite class in every European country West of the Iron Curtain survived.

The soviets exterminated most of the eastern European intelligencia for being the wrong type of communists, catching any the Nazis didn't get.

It did not go well for Eastern Europe afterwards.

Out of curiosity, do you have any examples of a country where a leader rapidly and publicly executed tens of thousands of elites and things went well afterwards (e.g. the country did not descend into civil war and standard of living did not decline substantially)?

Well, the closest thing that comes to my mind is Indonesia under Suharto:

Under his "New Order" administration, Suharto constructed a strong, centralised and military-dominated government. What started as an oligarchic military dictatorship evolved into a personalistic authoritarian regime centered around Suharto.[14] An ability to maintain stability over a sprawling and diverse Indonesia and an avowedly anti-communist stance won him the economic and diplomatic support of the West during the Cold War. For most of his presidency, Indonesia experienced significant industrialisation, economic growth, and improved levels of educational attainment.[15][16] As a result, he was given the title "Father of Development".[17] According to Transparency International, Suharto was one of the most corrupt leaders in modern history, having embezzled an alleged US$15–35 billion during his rule.[18][19]

Suharto remains a controversial and divisive figure within the Indonesian general public. Many Indonesians have praised his 31-year regime for its economic development, rapid industrialization, and perceived political stability, while others have denounced his dictatorial rule, extensive human rights violations and corruption.[20][21] Plans to award the status of National Hero to Suharto are being considered by the Indonesian government and have been debated vigorously in Indonesia.[22]

From Wikipedia's article on the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66:

Large-scale killings and civil unrest primarily targeting members and supposed sympathizers of the Communist Party (PKI) were carried out in Indonesia from 1965 to 1966. Other affected groups included alleged communist sympathisers, Gerwani women, trade unionists,[14] ethnic Javanese Abangan,[1] ethnic Chinese, atheists, so-called "unbelievers", and alleged leftists in general. According to the most widely published estimates at least 500,000 to 1 million people were killed,[3]: 3 [4][5][7] with some estimates going as high as two to three million.[15][16] The atrocities, sometimes described as a genocide[17][2][3] or politicide,[18][19] were instigated by the Indonesian Army under Suharto. Research and declassified documents demonstrate the Indonesian authorities received support from foreign countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom.[20][21]: 157 [22][23][24][25]

(According to Macrotrends.net, the population of Indonesia in 1965 was about 101 million, so we're talking about 0.5-3% of the population being killed.)

How many of those people were "elite," I can't say. And the help from the anti-communist side of the Cold War definitely played a role in maintaining stability while carrying out such a massive purge. But Indonesia did indeed grow more prosperous in the aftermath.

Of course, things would need to be pretty terrible to justify such extreme measures.

So do you think things are that terrible in America? Because honestly things don't seem that bad to me, especially judging by historical standards. I'm not happy with everything in the US, but overall my life is pretty good and the parts of it that are bad would not be helped by the execution of tens of thousands of elites.

There are many cases of a white terror working out rather well. Other cases of it going badly, of course, so it seems like a high-risk maneuver.

One interesting example of mass purging of the elite working out well was Ivan the terrible’s ascent to power, marked by butchering the noblemen to enable him to centralize power under the crown. This was probably good for the average Russian. This pattern would later repeat after Stalin’s death, when Beriya was murdered by Zhukov and his supporters purged in the process of making Kruschev premier- a vast improvement over both Stalin and Beriya.

I guess I should distinguish between two senses of "working well": first, working well for the leader executing their opponents and second, working well for most people in the country. I think you're kind of addressing both senses here, but I'm mostly interested in the second.

For Ivan the Terrible, do you have any reference explaining your claim that his ascent was probably good for the average Russian? I don't necessarily disbelieve you, but it's not a claim I've heard before. Also, how many people were actually executed during Khrushchev's rise to power? I know he was responsible for a lot of deaths during Stalin's purges and I know (as you mentioned) that Beria was killed, but I know little about Khrushchev so I don't know how bloody his rule was more generally.

I think these people are slowly picking up on the real fact that the US isn’t a democracy or a republic anymore, and they have started engaging in cargo-cult Kremlinology.

That reminds me of a book that came out during the Trump administration on the Korean peninsula. Nominally a 'how it could go wrong' scenario around Trump got the US into a nuclear exchange with North Korea, but with things like North Korea lacking the magical technology of 'radios' to figure out if the capital city had been nuked or not (it hadn't been- the narrative relied on a loss of phone lines to justify the belief), and with a scene of Trump being beaten up by his military officers over use of the nuclear football.

It was very much a mix of gratuitous fantasizing, but also assuming incompetence / unrealities to push the story forward that revealed a general lack of understanding of the Korean peninsula.

Naturally, it was highly recommended in some circles at the time of the rocketman tweet saga.

It was called “The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States” and I found it quite fun. Jeffrey Lewis is a military wonk rather than a politician so it was mostly interesting from a miltech and strategy point of view. The Trump nuclear football scene was clearly tongue in cheek fan service.

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