site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   34125 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

“There is an epidemic amongst men in this country,” Mike Nellis, a Democratic strategist who helped organize the call, told The Hill.

The "masculinity crisis" is probably down mostly to the traditional foundations of masculine identity, what distinguished it fundamentally from femininity going back several thousand years at least, e.g being physically powerful and being good at killing people/animals are less and less relevant than ever in industrial and post-industrial society and are only going to become more so.

Probably not actually "fixable" short of a Kaczsynskian collapse of civilization and why all proposed solutions whether they be left-wing "build a positive masculinity" stuff or right-wing "retvrn" will fail.

Satiate this with combat sports? A young man might feel generally better if he goes to a martial arts gym twice a week. I sure did.

Nothing has been hit as hard with the istphobe hammer than groups of men trying to compete with each other in physical activity. The horse's mouth will plainly tell you that such things are rooted in white supremacy and that anyone who lifts weights is inherently suspect of being far right.

There is even some truth in this, in that such groups of competitive men would eventually tend to build enough rapport to collectively seek their own group interest. And fix society in the process I might add. But there is no world where intersectionals can tolerate such organization if they want to keep power. And so they can't solve this problem.

Literally who cares what anyone else thinks. If society at large is having a masculinity crisis that likely includes many men who speak on TheMotte. Average testosterone levels have dropped dramatically since the 1980s. Frequent time sitting at computers does us no favors in this regard. Taking up a martial art is one of the best things a man can do to counteract this trend. Learning to be cool-headed in direct physical confrontation goes a long way toward establishing an emotional base for further success.

who cares what anyone else thinks

I'm not saying you should not still do it, but you should mind that people are trying to prevent you from doing it. Otherwise you will end up win weird places, asking yourself how that happened. Ask Enrique Tarrio.

By all means grow stronger and more connected as much as you possiblity can. Just don't advertise it to the Eye of Sauron.

Nothing has been hit as hard with the istphobe hammer than groups of men trying to compete with each other in physical activity. The horse's mouth will plainly tell you that such things are rooted in white supremacy and that anyone who lifts weights is inherently suspect of being far right.

I am not aware of this being a significant factor at all. Who is saying this and how many people are listening to them?

MSNBC, for one.

The Guardian, for another. Does that count? I understand they're very well left-leaning, but it's atleast a glimpse into what left-leaning individuals are telling each other.

Here's an older opinion article that shows it's not a new trend. A single data point, sure, but a data point is a data point.

Funny enough, this seems to be a theme for her. Here's a much more recent article from the same individual. Money quote: 'The more self-actualised you become, the higher you are on self-righteousness, blaming other people’s problems on their failure to be as healthy as you.' Interesting take, I'll admit.

Was the MSNBC article mocked? Yes. But it's telling it was voiced at all; liberals tend to be more insular with little understanding of how conservatives think. The concerning part isn't wether it's true or not(color me skeptical), the concerning part is that liberals are telling one another that this is a thing.

And the political divide widens.

In the MSNBC article, maybe some dog-whistling there (e.g. "Physical fitness has always been central to the far right.") but that's not the same as saying that "such things are rooted in white supremacy and that anyone who lifts weights is inherently suspect of being far right".

The Zoe Williams articles are closer, though it's "more right wing" rather than "white supremacist". (She confesses to having recommended "every activity and pursuit, every wellness wheeze and rejuvenation exercise the modern world has dreamed up.") And I doubt that she is a sufficient influence to stop "A young man [feeling] generally better if he goes to a martial arts gym twice a week." (The original controversial claim by @TIRM.)

My general model of happiness is that it directly or indirectly comes from hard work to pursue goals that are subjectively meaningful. Exercise slows ageing, helps protect against horrific fates like dementia, aids one's sex life (even if partnered) and many other benefits. A major problem, though, is that it's tempting and popular to think that happiness comes from ease and choice, rather than from striving. Happiness from ease and choice is largely an effect of relaxing from mental and/or physical striving...

Huh, that does sound a bit fascist, I admit, but I am happy to agree with fascists on that much.

The MSNBC article has a photoshop of a German youth rally throwing Nazi salutes with the subtitle 'Physical fitness and violent hypermasculinity have always been central to the far right' as a header to said article.

That's less a 'dog whistle' and more an airhorn going off behind you.

You won't hear me argue against the benefits of exercise, though.

The MSNBC article has a photoshop of a German youth rally throwing Nazi salutes with the subtitle 'Physical fitness and violent hypermasculinity have always been central to the far right' as a header to said article.

That's less a 'dog whistle' and more an airhorn going off behind you.

It's association, but association is not always dog whistling. "Punk rock is an important part of skinhead culture" doesn't imply "Punk rock is a skinhead thing."

I think the istphobes are a small and frankly irrelevant faction. They make a lot of "X is racist/white supremacist" articles. But I have as yet to see the consequences in real life. And I work for a woke corporation.

I may be lucky in some sense not being woke-policed too much. Or maybe the median working professional can say he likes going to the gym and practicing jiu-jitsu and no one has a negative word against it. I've never seen pushback outside of loony articles about how being fit is the fascist aesthetic.

You haven't seen pushback because you're not organizing youth clubs around the practice that may have any political salience.

People who do make the connection and actually try to give people structured lives based on this stuff get shellacked in the media. Who can forget what happened to Peterson for suggesting exactly this?

I think that Jordan Peterson was shellacked for things other than "men should be physically active". I am in the UK, not the US, and certainly not in the deep Blue parts of the US where wokestupid dominates the culture, but over here youth sport (for both sexes, and people are entirely comfortable with the fact that you get more natural interest from boys than girls) is a motherhood-and-apple-pie issue and the main reason why we don't get more of it is that it is politically impossible to say no when some idiot says "Did you know that you could divert even more resources from actually providing youth sport to generating a paper trail proving that the parent-volunteers aren't paedophiles?"

It's a matter of the cart and the horse. To achieve what you suggest, it'd first be necessary to socially normalize the practice of groups of young single men banding together and visiting martial arts gyms that exist to serve only them. Which...well, I think you get my point.

The "masculinity crisis" is probably down mostly to the traditional foundations of masculine identity, what distinguished it fundamentally from femininity going back several thousand years at least, e.g being physically powerful and being good at killing people/animals are less and less relevant than ever in industrial and post-industrial society and are only going to become more so.

Except

  1. It isn't. There are lots of jobs where physical strength matters, and they're very gendered male. The trades are male. Some physical jobs that aren't as obviously about strength, like drivers, are also very gendered male.

  2. There's differences that show up in the modern age too. Engineering is predominantly male (though not as male as the trades), despite vast effort made to change that. But do men get credit for this? No, we get rhetorically beat up for it.

It's not men who need fixing. It's the people who insist on refusing to acknowledge anything positive about masculinity.

There are lots of jobs where physical strength matters, and they're very gendered male.

There are a lot less than there used to be and will probably be even less going forward.

There's differences that show up in the modern age too. Engineering is predominantly male (though not as male as the trades), despite vast effort made to change that. But do men get credit for this? No, we get rhetorically beat up for it.

Yes, there are other sex differences. But upper body strength, and what flows from it like fighting, killing, other feats of physical strength was for a long time the single most important sex difference. It absolutely dwarfs most others, even if you assume all other sex difference are 100% innate. Its shrinkage as a relevant factor in modern society is hugely impactful and probably couldn't be otherwise.

A huge portion of the seething over women having "fake email jobs" and what have you probably comes down to the fact that a huge portion of men also have "fake email jobs" nowadays. You can say "well the majority of cutting edge research in XYZ field is still done by men" or whatever, but that's a tiny proportion of all men so it doesn't really matter for the average person. It used to be the case that a miner or a steelworker or farm laborer could tell himself he was doing a job only a man could do and that was a source of pride and identity for him, though even by the 19th and early 20th century the anxiety about the softening of manhood was already well-advanced, evidenced by all of those intellectuals who argued that regular warfare was necessary to maintain racial/national virility. But nowadays a guy who works as a cashier at wal mart or does some rote office job understands full-well that a woman could do his job just as easily and it probably grates psychologically.

This reminds of the study (don't have the link, sorry, it's quite some time ago) that claimed to show that men resent and feel threatened by female success, and that this is a large part of successful womens' struggle with dating, based on the fact that men are much less attracted to successful women.

The numbers? Seeing a highly prestigious/high earning job such as CEO increases a woman's chance to consider dating that person by something like 50%, whereas men give only a 10% premium. On the other hand, seeing someone with a less prestigious/lower earning job than them reduced the chance to consider dating that person for the majority of women to near zero irrespective of other qualities, while men only gave a 20% penalty or so.

In other words, men just don't consider women's jobs as super-important either way. Only a minority of men resent that "a woman could do this". It's women who look down on male cashiers so much that they'd never consider dating one.

But as usual, everyone tries to find a way to blame men.

Whether women wanna date men who make less money than them is a totally different question from whether the disappearance of traditionally masculine jobs from the economy contributes to a crisis of masculine identity.

  • -10

If your post was entirely about how men just really like building, fighting, hunting, etc. and that modern jobs simply fail to fulfill some primal male urges I'd completely agree! Though I'd add that modern jobs struggle to sufficiently fulfill many primal female urges as well.

But a large chunk of your post was about how men resent certain female jobs and in particular resent doing jobs if - and because - a women can do them. This is a fairly common claim I hear, and it's in my view an inversion of reality ; It's primarily women who resent men doing a job they can do themselves, similar to how the average man does not resent successful women, but successful women resent the average man.

Though I'd add that modern jobs struggle to sufficiently fulfill many primal female urges as well.

I'm not sure this is accurate. Many female jobs: Nursing, Teaching, HR, etc. seem to scratch feminine itches and are either high status or have significant social support for arguing they should be high status.

In contrast the male jobs are very much low status, and status is an important part of scratching the male itch.

I don't think it is, mostly because one of the main reasons why there exists a crisis of masculine identity is because without provider-type jobs, women won't mate with men. It's less about miners and steelworkers vs fake email jobs, and more about provisions and providers vs children and child-rearing. Women have been moving away from producing children and spending time rearing them, and instead have been joining men in producing provisions (money) and spending time acquiring them (jobs). Men cannot and will never be able to make new children. They can raise them, but they are not suited for it, certainly not for the first year, likely more like two or three.

The elephant's tail is completely different from the elephant's nail, so I will grant you that the two questions are, in fact, different. That doesn't address either issue, and deliberately ignores the ways in which they are connected.

There are lots of jobs where physical strength matters, and they're very gendered male.

But these jobs are proportionally much more scarce than 50 or 100 years ago.

There's quite a few "stereotypically masculine, requires physical strength" jobs that having hiring shortages right now. Construction labor, Garbagemen, police beat cop in cities, and Army grunt (not West Point officer) to name a few. This suggests that it's not like those jobs have completely disappeared leaving manly-men with nothing to do, it's that those jobs are now so low status that no one wants them.

"Everyone knows" that the way you make good money now is to study STEM or business and get a while-collar job, even if what you really want to do is use your muscles in the real world.

I can't help but notice that three of the four jobs you listed are public sector jobs, which may have something to do with them being low status.

"Everyone knows" that the way you make good money now is to study STEM or business and get a while-collar job, even if what you really want to do is use your muscles in the real world.

They're not wrong. If you can do the work you can make a lot more money in computer programming or finance easier than you can in the trades. It's not impossible to make big money in the trades, but sometimes it requires connections (they don't hand out those $400k/year backup crane operator jobs to just anyone), and when it doesn't it still requires business skills as well -- you have to run your own operation and have employees.

The stereotypically masculine jobs with hiring shortages now tend to either have cyclical employment (like construction) or be shit for other reasons (including being very low status and/or low pay, or all the baggage of the military)

This is discounting the fact that we can totally be post-industrial and back to virility and violence.

Indeed this is what most critiques of traditionalism and twitter emulators miss when they caricature it as RETVRN. Tradition is never going back to the past, going backwards or trying to literally go back to past glories, and whenever it is that it fails. Because it is impossible to turn back entropy, because we are not people of the past, we have neither their virtues nor their vices, neither their innocence nor their wisdom.

What tradition is is acknowledgement of eternal truths and their practical, moral, social and metaphysical requirements.

In this case, the fiction you, and modernism, sells of a peaceful society created by industry is a blatant lie. One all too evident now. We do not live in peace, we do not live in civilization, we have only grown more base and brutal with the advent of plenty and the inevitable cthonic pull that came with it. That brutality is sheathed in nice even language and plentiful fast food and video games. But even those are fading and drifting out of grasp under the current of debt, slowly but inevitably moving away like the ship of a lone sailor who dropped overboard and has to resign himself to drowning.

What is more cruel and violent than the plain imposition that you will never own your home, you will never have a loving wife, you will never have a loyal husband, you will never sire children and all you will ever do is pay for pensions working a job you hate while your black rectangle beams images of happier people into your mind as everything in your vicinity including your own life gets slowly but surely worse in every regard. Perhaps the threat of the punishment that awaits you if you dare to contest such a fate?

Some societies treated slaves with more decency than modern man commends in all areas that are not commodified material comfort. But alas, the choice between annihilation and annihilation is not going to tame the youths spirit for very long.

Is is entirely predictable that such an age should be dominated by feminine thinking and modes of existence. But no age is eternal and the troubles created by the desolation of all social structures that require will necessarily wreak the advent of a new age of conquest and grandiose virility.

Our bandit hordes are already here. The warlords that will tame them have already been born. And when they do, earthly notions of equality, sameness and tolerance will go with them.

All this has happened before, and will happen again.

Some societies treated slaves with more decency than modern man commends in all areas that are not commodified material comfort.

I will ask again: can you list societies that had slaves treated better than modern man?

I could, but you'd just go ahead and ignore my caveat because you don't understand anything that is not material comfort.

So you simply are unable to substantiate your bullshit and insane claim how supposedly slaves were better treated than people nowadays.

Even to let other people (not me) to judge it and potential admire your great examples.

For future: making less overly strong claims could be much better tactic and let you argue without blatant lying.

Also, not having delusions that specifically me would be lord and king that subjugated others is not the same as understanding only material comfort.

Your understanding of antic civilizations and feudalism seems to be mostly based on 1700 bourgeois propaganda.

Go read about Antic Greece, Medieval Europe or modern warlord era China. Then we can have a productive conversation instead of you regurgitating Liberal memes.

Before taking advise from you on this I await examples of societies that:

  • had slaves
  • treated them better (in your opinion) than societies treat modern people now

For best effect: in which society that existed in past you would prefer to be enslaved over living your current life?

mostly based on 1700 bourgeois propaganda

"slavery bad" is opinion fairly widely shared, if you want to argue that slavery is better than freedom then I await your examples

"slavery bad" is opinion fairly widely shared

By Liberals and their successors only. Slavery has been widely considered a just or necessary practice before the Industrial Revolution. Aristotle famously makes a convincing argument that without it, progress is impossible.

I don't support it myself since we have machines now and I generally agree with Liberals directionally when it comes to the individual. But they do overstate their case for political reasons. That much is clear.

in which society that existed in past you would prefer to be enslaved over living your current life?

I don't believe in Rawlsianism, but let's consider Rome.

Most household and business managers and agents were slaves, and they were even a preferred caste in banking and accounting, and quite common in intellectual pursuits. So I'd probably fall under that category in that society anyways. And my life would be less constrained in some ways and more constrained in others. In

The most brutal accounts revolve around what one would predict: agriculture and mining. But they don't strike me as less exploitative than the treatment of nominally free workers in the 1800s. In fact it is often remarked upon by contemporaries of the Industrial Revolution (such as Marx as I mention previously) that the incentives of capitalism are actually worse for the underlings than those of slavery.

A slave you have to feed and shelter all year and throughout his life lest you eat into your investment. An employee you can and should dismiss if they are not making you money. To be fair, abandonment was also an issue with slavery, but in Rome it was specifically made illegal to reclaim abandoned slaves because they system relied on these incentives. The lumpenproletariat is a uniquely modern issue.

From the point of view of the middle class, slavery is an indignity for obvious reasons: it refuses them bluntly access to higher prestige, certain professions, and general control over their personal life that they could fully enjoy given their means.

But for the lowest of the low, for those people for whom getting a meal is not a given, which is what led us down this path of discussion, rights and dignity are not those prized treats. And selling themselves into service can actually be a good deal.

This is the real charge against modernity that communists and other successors of Liberalism successfully accuse it with. That those nice ideas of individualism and freedom are only good for those that already had the means to enjoy them and that removing the other forms of bonds society used to run on makes all the miserable untied to the now free individual.

Being more free and having more rights is not necessarily in your interest.

Servants were often in a similar position. Back in the day, even quite poor famillies would often have a cook, say, who had a personal role in that household. Now, people still employ cooks, but they work in warehouses preparing meals for Uber Eats.

The bad of personal employment: less personal agency, more potential for victimisation at the hands of bad employers. The good: your employers are pretty explicitly responsible for your general wellbeing in the eyes of society, and they aren't so beholden to profit margins.

Or to put it another way, in a fluid modern economy, nobody is responsible for you except for you. That can be very empowering, but it can also put you in a position where all of your options are bad and you end up essentially responsible for exploiting yourself.

More comments

But they don't strike me as less exploitative than the treatment of nominally free workers in the 1800s.

But for the lowest of the low

earlier you claimed that this was far more widely applicable and favourable also in comparison to modern people in general:

Some societies treated slaves with more decency than modern man commends in all areas that are not commodified material comfort.

are you withdrawing this claim and admit that no such society existed?

But for the lowest of the low, for those people for whom getting a meal is not a given

And for such people in past slavery could be preferable, before industrial society made everyone much richer. But is not applying anymore. So I am also confused why you think that slavery would be better for such people than their current life.

I admit that live of exploited slave could be better than life of a heroin addict. But it is pretty hard to find modern people for which being enslaved would increase their access to a food.

rights and dignity are not those prized treats

So for which areas "societies treated slaves with more decency than modern man commends"? You admit now that these are out. You yourself excluded "commodified material comfort" earlier. So, in which exactly areas slaves had supposedly a better life?

More comments

Don't worry too much about it, a lot of this lot are wanna be religious fanatics that don't have the courage of their convictions and authoritarians that don't have the power to actually impose their will on people. Just par for the course. The only power they have is a downvote on a fringe website that is slowly turning into stormfront.

Oh, I do not worry about it at all.

It is more that I am poking at this as I am curious is there any self-consistent and reality-adjacent vision of world there.

As far as hot takes go "live as modern man is worse than living as a slave in some societies" is quite out there so I keep wondering how they managed to justify this.

But sadly*, it seems that even they do not really believe in this as they keep trying to backpedal and limit claim to lumpenproletariat at most.

*for the expected return on discussion, for themself and world in general it is a good thing that it was just shitposting.

What is more cruel and violent than the plain imposition that you will never own your home, you will never have a loving wife, you will never have a loyal husband, you will never sire children and all you will ever do is pay for pensions working a job you hate while your black rectangle beams images of happier people into your mind as everything in your vicinity including your own life gets slowly but surely worse in every regard. Perhaps the threat of the punishment that awaits you if you dare to contest such a fate?

For example an armed mob* coming to your flat, stealing all your stuff, burning building where you lived, maybe also raping you and enslaving? Or just flat-out murdering you for one reason or another?

*with uniforms or not, there are variants of it from Hutu, Hitler and Pol-Pot through Red Army to basically all factions in Syrian War

Also, while you describe pretty fucked up society, basically nowhere situation is as bad or mandatory. And places where situation is worse - that is because they have far too much of virility and violence.

We do not live in peace, we do not live in civilization

Oh, go away with such redefinitions. Or at least propose new ones to allow distinguishing Los Angeles from what happened in Aleppo and Mariupol and Grozny.

And "civilization" surely includes polities where government did horrible things, if rulers decided to enslave/murder 10% of population it does not imply that we do not live in civilization. In fact civilization is needed for major projects, including "hey, lets murder 10 000 000 people".

You are complaining about badly setup civilisation, if someone promised you that civilisation is cuddly or nice to all population - then you should read something about world.

Some societies treated slaves with more decency than modern man commends in all areas that are not commodified material comfort.

Which ones you think that fit? For me at least "being enslaved" seems to make it basically impossible. And just lack of material comfort AKA starving to death if things went wrong is in a fact major issue to people. Maybe I am extrapolating too much, but I really appreciate that starving to death is not a real risk to me.

This is discounting the fact that we can totally be post-industrial and back to virility and violence.

Yes, we can. At cost of things getting far worse. No idea why this would be preferable - I would prefer neither, but I will take fucked up dating market over being murdered by rampaging vikings or starving to death or being oppressed by feudal lord worse than being oppressed now.

I guess that some people imagine themself to be doing the looting and raping or ruling as new lords. In such case, I wish them utter failure of all their plans and deranged imaginations.

All this has happened before, and will happen again.

I hope this will not happen in lifetime mine, my children or grandchildren - as plan minimum.

For me at least "being enslaved" seems to make it basically impossible. [...] I really appreciate that starving to death is not a real risk to me

Free men are not guaranteed food and shelter.

At cost of things getting far worse.

Worse for who? At cost to whom?

Your personal welfare is immaterial if it's creating people with nothing to lose. And I'm not saying this because I enjoy that this is the case, but because it's the plain truth.

Empires have a natural tendency to do this which is why they're precarious affairs that always seem to create feudal societies in their wake once the source of the advantage that saw them rise dries up.

This is what is happening to our society. You may not live to see the most dramatic of consequences, you may even be able to shelter yourself from much of it, but you are living the consequences all the same.

Free men are not guaranteed food and shelter.

Really? That is supposed to be benefit over modern citizen?

For start, slaves were not guaranteed food and shelter.

And maybe technically free men are not having such guarantees nowadays, but in practise they have them.

In functional modern societies free men get better food and shelter than slaves in past, even utterly useless ones and criminals. Maybe being slave in some societies was better than being beggar in modern Somalia and Syria but only for some of slave-owning societies.

Minimally competent free men get vastly better food and shelter.

Of all things, social support is not thing that was better for slaves than typical people nowadays. You even initially excluded "that are not commodified material comfort" from supposed benefits.

Worse for who? At cost to whom?

For anyone not preferring to risk dying from starvation or from raving bandits or being brutally oppressed by local lord.

For whom "post-industrial and back to virility and violence" would be better?

For start, slaves were not guaranteed food and shelter.

This was broadly understood for thousands of years to be the one advantage of servitude and the one disadvantage of freedom. People with no duties to others are offered no protection.

For whom "post-industrial and back to virility and violence" would be better?

Free men.

Are you aware about food production nowadays and how it compared to past? And how starvation used to be far more common?

You even claim that benefit of slavery is that you were more likely to eat.

Free men.

Who you count here? Noble elite class? Rampaging neovikings? Starving peasantry?

Yes I am indeed aware of the industrial revolution.

Who you count here? Noble elite class? Rampaging neovikings? Starving peasantry?

Anyone who is capable of violence and not beholden to a master usually has a lot to gain in feudal transitions.

Think of Li Zongren and his men, and all his and their peers.

Of course this is also risky, but that's the nature of such times.

not beholden to a master usually has a lot to gain in feudal transitions

whole point of feudal societal setup is that basically everyone has feudal lord above them and they are beholden to someone (and in some cases have people beholden to them)

so I guess you argue that whoever ends being king would benefit? That is likely true, but it is remarkably small group of people, and given that others are going to lose, I have no idea who would prefer such setup

More comments

Marriage (and therefore childbearing)is definitely delayed. The homeownership story is more complicated: https://www.redfin.com/news/gen-z-millennial-homeownership-rate-home-purchases/

But, aren't you French? Maybe France is just worse in this respect (though this proves it's not inherent to modernity, it is merely a policy question).

France has 60% out of wedlock births- amusingly, this is a piece of evidence against the thesis of the French fertility advantage being mostly Mohammedans.

This might be mitigated if Muslims are less likely to go through the civil marriage process in comparison to other groups. I have a friend from a German Evangelical free church that's not integrated with the state like the mainline Lutheran and Catholic ones, they refuse to register their marriages with the local magistrate and therefore their children count as born out-of-wedlock in the eyes of the state.

How so? Is out-of-wedlock childbirth super-haram in Islam?

What is more cruel and violent than the plain imposition that you will never own your home, you will never have a loving wife, you will never have a loyal husband, you will never sire children and all you will ever do is pay for pensions working a job you hate while your black rectangle beams images of happier people into your mind as everything in your vicinity including your own life gets slowly but surely worse in every regard. Perhaps the threat of the punishment that awaits you if you dare to contest such a fate?

Being eaten by wolves. Having your head bashed in by a rival war party. Pretty much any given day in the life of a pre-modern man. On feast days Russian peasants used to get drunk and beat each other senseless for fun, and then go home and beat their wives. This is just "words are violence" but right-wing.

Actually none of what you describes strikes me as a fraction as unpleasant as the life of the average person a few centuries ago, which is probably why humanity collectively abandoned that lifestyle as soon as it was materially feasible. "A job you hate" is not fun but it's probably more fun than starving to death because there was a bad frost and the crops all died.

As for "everything slowly but surely getting worse in every regard" idk what specifically you have in mind but most right-wing complaints about everything getting worse are just tautological complaints that everything is getting less right-wing which naturally isn't convincing to anyone who doesn't already buy into all right-wing premises.

All this has happened before, and will happen again.

It hasn't. Cyclical theories of history were always bullshit, though they may have been facially plausible in 1800 . Humanity is in entirely uncharted territory. The past offers no lessons, because it actually is different this time. Modern people aren't 16th century peasants. They aren't even 20th century proletarians.

All of the "weak men strong times" stuff, the idea that the stultifying atmosphere of modernity will ultimately lead to some great revolt for the restoration of meaning, virtue, whatever, none of it has any contact with reality. Angsting about meaning is itself a luxury available to the excessively wealthy, as everyone is in modern developed countries by western standards. Approximately nobody is going to forsake material comfort to embark on some great vitalist crusade, because material comfort is what most people actually care about first and foremost. Even people who are "struggling" today live like kings compared to the average person 100 years ago, let alone 200.

It would take a total collapse of industrial civilization to produce the global warlordism that you dream of, and that's possible, though I don't think it's very likely.

I don't even know what "we can totally be post-industrial and back to virility and violence" would actually even look like in practice. Like a based fascist party takes over the US tomorrow and then, what, invades Mexico for fun? Resurrects gladiatorial combat? Nukes China?

I remember when right-wing twitter personality Alaric the Barbarian made a post about how young men need GREATNESS and ADVENTURE and should not settle for the drudgery of living in suburban Indianopolis and someone reasonably said yeah posting photos of Greek statues and larping as a Germanic warlord is cool and everything but what actually are you concretely suggesting people do and he replied uhhh run for dogcatcher.

Not to get deeply entangled in this discussion, but I suppose the steelman to IGI is that the material improvements that we live under are far from permanent, and could well disappear before we realize it, and suddenly we find ourselves back to the brutal state of affairs known to the past.

Consider Mad Max, a media franchise that remains fairly popular today despite the original film being more obviously inspired by the Oil Crisis (a temporary shock that helped spur us into changing our ways), and the sequel defining the post-apocalypse tropes that made it so influential, despite it coming out at a time when the Oil Crisis was likely abating, if not already ended.

The Curse of Plenty, the thing that gives rise to the narrative of "good times create weak men," is a trope we see in fiction and in real life. We go from rags to riches and back again, just as ancient religions had ways of saying that we come from nothing and eventually return to nothing.

I do personally feel that we had a peak of "goodness" in recent decades that may well have been an anomaly, and that the "dreamtime"/whalefall (to borrow from Scott) is well coming to an end. We can only hope that things don't snap and break apart once all the slack is gone.

Not to get deeply entangled in this discussion, but I suppose the steelman to IGI is that the material improvements that we live under are far from permanent, and could well disappear before we realize it, and suddenly we find ourselves back to the brutal state of affairs known to the past.

Well I don't disagree with that proposition. Does anybody? What is supposed to be drawn from that? Yes if we were reduced to the material level of the 15th century we would probably live similarily to 15th century people. But so what? What is the use of pointing out such a banal fact?

Perhaps to point out that we don't actually have that much logistical distance from the 15th Century? Our technology and our logistics support each other in an interlocking balance, and certain things cannot be sustained without other things.

ETA: That being said, if you put a gun to my head and asked me to answer where I think we'd end up in the event of a global collapse, I think our tech level might be dropped down to possibly 18th-century levels, assuming that electricity somehow becomes unreliable or scarce alongside fossil fuel.

Not to get deeply entangled in this discussion, but I suppose the steelman to IGI is that the material improvements that we live under are far from permanent, and could well disappear before we realize it, and suddenly we find ourselves back to the brutal state of affairs known to the past.

And there are places where they mostly disappeared, for one reason or another.

And actually we are not so far away from crucial infrastructure being disrupted (one way or another - regulations, armed sabotage, outright war) and ending with no cheap electronics, power shortage, major famine.

To take extreme but possible example - nuclear war will not kill everyone (far from it) but would wreak things for survivors. Full scale exchange would have death toll in billions and would decisively disrupt pretty much anything.

Serious pandemics are possible and after COVID it seems clear that more lethal pathogen would be a massive problem.

And so on.

You undervalue the past. True, we stand on untrodden ground. Never before has even this conversation across who knows how many miles been possible, for one. And yet, I do not think it is utterly uninformative. The world will not repeat itself, but you may see some pattern here or there crop up again.

I think you also undervalue whatever is not material comfort and progress. Our social relations make up a huge portion of our lives, and that is not so unambiguously better. Further, it is just not the case that everyone, everywhere, at all times, really cares only about material comfort. Your tacit assumption as much is, I think, part of our milieu. The continued existence and growth of the Amish are a living monument, I think, that people do not all value a comfortable life.

What would a society that cared about these sorts of things (social goods) do? Encourage marriage and children. Encourage general integration with society, especially in person. To the extent possible, reduce welfare and dependency. Reduce profligacy; promote austerity, at least in regard to economic activity devoted to comfort. As to government action, reduce spending, especially on welfare; seriously consider taking an economic hit to start to work on the debt. Make people responsible for things, instead of hiding it behind bureaucracies. Ideally somehow figure out how to stop being so wasteful in military spending, while also being more prepared to handle powerful actors. Actually put a stop to the Houthis messing up global shipping.

I think your final paragraph, from a brief glance, might have misunderstood what he is doing. He seemed less to be setting out an ideal of "this is the life to which we must retvrn" so much as saying that the right does not encourage certain sorts of ambition enough, and so large classes of society have been ceded to the left. This is correct, and has been noted by left-leaning commentators. He prescribes not settling.

That said, you have a point—no one really has a vision of what things should be like. I think the desire for some sort of action and striving that you point to and question has something to it—Aristotle was gesturing at something real when he characterized eudaimonia as an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue—but it must be to some end, some purpose. This, I think, is where a lot of people see value. In the struggle, in their achievements that they have toiled over and after—that, they can be pleased with. People value being relied upon, necessary, to be making a difference. We are often happier in the breathless pursuit of a thing than in the possession of it. But the solution is not toil for toil's sake, as you rightly seem to gesture at. We do not value pointless work. And there hardly seems to be any terminal value that people are content with. Science fiction, I suppose, will often seek endless exploration of the universe. But why? To what end? Because we couldn't think of anything better to do? What is the chief end of man?

Ecclesiastes is a good book.

Actually none of what you describes strikes me as a fraction as unpleasant as the life of the average person a few centuries ago, which is probably why humanity collectively abandoned that lifestyle as soon as it was materially feasible.

You have no experience of the life of the average person a few centuries ago. You don't even have stories of that life. You have a small, curated selection of those stories provided by a small collection of people, almost all of which likewise had no experience of that life. Biasing that sample for personal or tribal ends provides obvious utility, and it is trivial to observe that such biasing efforts are endemic.

We have actual histories, songs and stories from people a few centuries ago, and even from many centuries ago. They do not demonstrate a life-experience of unending hell-misery, but rather an existence very like our own. Their concerns were similar to ours. Their joy and suffering was similar to ours. Nothing fundamental about human nature or the human experience has changed in any way since at least the invention of writing.

They do not demonstrate a life-experience of unending hell-misery, but rather an existence very like our own.

This is largely because "man is a creature than can get used to anything". Even today, Guatemalans are only 0.44 points out of 10 less happy than Americans (yes, you can quibble about the exact measures, but the phenomenon is robust to the choice of measure). I'd sure as hell prefer to live in America than in Guatemala, even though if I lived in Guatemala all my life I probably wouldn't mind it too much.

An argument which applies equally well to IGI’s catastrophizing. The songs and stories of 50 or 500 years ago were relatable; shouldn’t we expect the same in another 50 or 500?

We should. How is that incompatible with the following?

Our bandit hordes are already here. The warlords that will tame them have already been born. And when they do, earthly notions of equality, sameness and tolerance will go with them.

All this has happened before, and will happen again.

Compare that to this comment:

Yes, our ancestors were "like us" insofar as they loved their friends and families, liked to tell and hear stories, enjoyed food and sex, and feared death, but that's a pretty sparse overlap in my opinion. Outside of a tiny handful of intellectuals and philosophers, you probably wouldn't be able to hold any kind of real or meaningful conversation with a 16th century German even if you could speak his language perfectly, and you wouldn't want to anyway because he might crush your skull.

The difference seems pretty clear to me.

The conditions of life in say, tsarist Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries to give one example are pretty well recorded, and they were not vastly changed from those in the 18th or 17th centuries. The vanishing of the traditional agricultural lifestyle is quite recent in historical terms, and it still persists to some extent today in certain countries. So we actually do have a pretty good picture of what pre-industrial life was like.

We have actual histories, songs and stories from people a few centuries ago, and even from many centuries ago. They do not demonstrate a life-experience of unending hell-misery, but rather an existence very like our own.

Naturally, they didn't know anything else. If you lock a kid in the basement from infancy and beat him five times every day of the week and only once on Saturday and Sunday, the weekend is gonna look pretty awesome to him, but most people who weren't raised in a basement wouldn't find being locked in a basement and being beaten once a day on weekends very fun.

Their concerns were similar to ours. Their joy and suffering was similar to ours. Nothing fundamental about human nature or the human experience has changed in any way since at least the invention of writing.

You severely underrate how alien these people were. There's pretty good evidence they were practically incapable of abstract thought or logical exercises that would be easy for a small child in the modern United States (this being in reference to the great mass of common people, obviously, not a very small educated elite). You may be familiar with A.M Luria's study of Uzbek peasants as late as the 1920s and 30s as it's made the rounds in rationalist and rationalist adjacent circles. This was not because of any genetic inferiority, but because their world was so founded in the immediate and concrete that a basic "if A then B" syllogism was beyond their grasp. They were also shockingly violent. Besides their regular wanton cruelty to animals for practical reasons as well as for amusement, they were basically always ready to fight and kill each other over the mildest of slights. Sicilian immigrants to the US as late as the 20s, coming from one of the most backwards and least industrialized regions in Europe, had an astronomical murder rate because stabbing somebody in the throat for cheating at cards or hitting on your sister was just totally normal to them.

Yes, our ancestors were "like us" insofar as they loved their friends and families, liked to tell and hear stories, enjoyed food and sex, and feared death, but that's a pretty sparse overlap in my opinion. Outside of a tiny handful of intellectuals and philosophers, you probably wouldn't be able to hold any kind of real or meaningful conversation with a 16th century German even if you could speak his language perfectly, and you wouldn't want to anyway because he might crush your skull.

You may be familiar with A.M Luria's study of Uzbek peasants as late as the 1920s and 30s as it's made the rounds in rationalist and rationalist adjacent circles.

I am, but would appreciate either elaboration or a link to what you consider the strongest version of the Luria argument. I remember it being profoundly unconvincing, but I'd like to read it again to be sure I'm not missing something. Specifically, I understand the general form of the "if A then B" that was supposedly beyond them, but I'd like some detail on exactly what consequences you expect to derive from this claim, such that you think the absence of this ability would make their thought alien to me. How were they actually different in their lived experience, in their life choices, in how they acted and what they did?

Besides their regular wanton cruelty to animals for practical reasons as well as for amusement, they were basically always ready to fight and kill each other over the mildest of slights. Sicilian immigrants to the US as late as the 20s, coming from one of the most backwards and least industrialized regions in Europe, had an astronomical murder rate because stabbing somebody in the throat for cheating at cards or hitting on your sister was just totally normal to them.

None of these features seem alien in any way. Widespread examples of all of these characteristics are available in the modern world, and in America even, not to mention many other examples of behavior I find equally deplorable or abhorrent in many other varieties. None of this is even close to as alien as, say, the Apache or Comanche, and I would not describe them as bizarrely alien.

Yes, our ancestors were "like us" insofar as they loved their friends and families, liked to tell and hear stories, enjoyed food and sex, and feared death, but that's a pretty sparse overlap in my opinion.

To be a bit more specific, they were "like us" in that they had exactly the same vices and virtues as we have, in roughly equal proportions; only the detail of how these were expressed culturally seems to differ. Further, they had most of the same major life experiences, and those we do not share have close analogues. I see no way to couch this as "a sparse overlap". I can read their stories and immediately grok the ideas behind them, and find them familiar to me. I'm pretty sure they had bullying, crushes, sweethearts, rivals, hated enemies, ambition, jealousy, deceit... I am confident they had people essentially like me, and people essentially like you, in short.

Outside of a tiny handful of intellectuals and philosophers, you probably wouldn't be able to hold any kind of real or meaningful conversation with a 16th century German even if you could speak his language perfectly, and you wouldn't want to anyway because he might crush your skull.

I would love to do so. And I do not particularly doubt that I would be able to do so. As for crushing my skull, I suppose you are doubling down on the incomprehensibly violent nature of the 16th century German peasantry; the "astronomical murder rate", the stabbings, the honor killings and so on. Truly, how could anyone communicate with such alien savages?

Well, here's the first graph result for the search "murder rate 16th century germany".

By the 1600s, the Germans are down to around 10 murders per 100,000, and the dread Italians are around 35. At that point, the 1600s Guido Menace would have moderately less violent that American blacks in the 2000s, and moderately more violent than those same blacks in the 2010s. I'd guess the Vile Huns were somewhere roughly in the ballpark of Appalachian whites from the same era. American blacks, in any case, are likewise not entirely unfamiliar with domestic violence, or indeed with animal cruelty for sport. And they're like this in the modern world with all the blessings of modernity, not least of which is a system of truly remarkable trauma medicine to turn 1600s murders into mere 2000s woundings. I used to work with a lot of underclass Blacks in an underclass job. Was I likewise underestimating how "deeply alien" my black coworkers were, or are these feelings of alienation reserved only for the distant past?

The disparity between your claims and the immediately-available evidence is confusing to me, to the point that I worry I'm reading the charts wrong. Is there something I'm missing here?

In any case, humans do heinous shit, always have and always will. None of this is new, or indeed old and forgotten, but rather simply is. None of it is incomprehensible. I imagine German or Italian peasants would be horrified by a description of American abortion practices, or OnlyFans, or Pride Parades, or indeed any number of our other modern abominations, but in fact none of that is new in its fundamental essence either.

Nice hat... strikes again (the 'first graph result' link is borked)

thanks. replaced it with another source of the same chart, should be working now.

I am, but would appreciate either elaboration or a link to what you consider the strongest version of the Luria argument.

I don't really know what I'd call the strongest version of the argument, as I don't think Luria really was making an argument (well he was, but the argument was that socialist development was raising the mental level of the peasantry which is not really interesting) so much as just collecting data. But in any case here's a summary of the research. Here is Russell T. Warne describing a study in Africa which showed the same phenomenon.

ut I'd like some detail on exactly what consequences you expect to derive from this claim, such that you think the absence of this ability would make their thought alien to me.

That's a matter of taste. I would find it extremely frustrating and yes, alien, to hold a conversation with someone who was incapable of entertaining a hypothetical.

None of these features seem alien in any way. Widespread examples of all of these characteristics are available in the modern world, and in America even,

Killing somebody over a card game or killing a cat for fun are pretty alien to me. If someone did either of these things I would stay far away from them and consider them dangerous and anti-social, as would everybody else I know. Some people do do these things even today in the modern USA and they are generally considered to be acting in an extremely aberrant and objectionable way.

None of this is even close to as alien as, say, the Apache or Comanche, and I would not describe them as bizarrely alien.

I would. The Comanche used to teach their children how to torture prisoners of war to death. That is bizarrely alien to my experience and I think it probably is to yours as well.

To be a bit more specific, they were "like us" in that they had exactly the same vices and virtues as we have, in roughly equal proportions; only the detail of how these were expressed culturally seems to differ.

That's burying the lede pretty hard. The details of how base emotions, most of which are shared even by non-human animals, are expressed, are very important.

I'm pretty sure they had bullying, crushes, sweethearts, rivals, hated enemies, ambition, jealousy, deceit...

Wild animals above the level of insects have all these too. Maybe not jealousy.

Truly, how could anyone communicate with such alien savages?

You're the only one using the word "savage." They were different from us, which doesn't necessarily make them worse or better. I'm not even passing judgment. I wouldn't wanna live like they did, but that's just my personal preference, being as much a product of my environment as they were.

By the 1600s, the Germans are down to around 10 murders per 100,000, and the dread Italians are around 35.

Compared to Germany's rate of 1 per 100,000 today, I would call that shockingly high.

At that point, the 1600s Guido Menace would have moderately less violent that American blacks in the 2000s, and moderately more violent than those same blacks in the 2010s. I'd guess the Vile Huns were somewhere roughly in the ballpark of Appalachian whites from the same era. American blacks, in any case, are likewise not entirely unfamiliar with domestic violence, or indeed with animal cruelty for sport. And they're like this in the modern world with all the blessings of modernity, not least of which is a system of truly remarkable trauma medicine to turn 1600s murders into mere 2000s woundings. I used to work with a lot of underclass Blacks in an underclass job. Was I likewise underestimating how "deeply alien" my black coworkers were, or are these feelings of alienation reserved only for the distant past?

I can't speak to that specifically, but yes there are pockets of life in modern society which are extremely alien to me. I have also interacted fairly extensively with "underclass" people, or at least people from a different social class than me, mostly whites and Mexicans (including some who have spent time in prison for violent crimes). Yes I have found their experiences and backgrounds very alien to my own, to the point where it was often difficult to find the common ground necessary for any kind of fruitful conversation. The feeling was mutual, and I imagine it would be even more the case with a 17th century peasant commune.

I imagine German or Italian peasants would be horrified by a description of American abortion practices, or OnlyFans, or Pride Parades,

No doubt.

I live in a modern-ish suburb. My parents come from flatland hillbilly/swampbilly backgrounds with extended family members who have committed what would be felonies(mostly kidnapping) if they happened outside of deep deep rural areas to enforce family honor in the 21st century, seriously expect us to respect their disownments over religious issues, and other such clannish behavior. I'm not underclass but I've lived among them and seen the way they behave.

People underestimate the cultural gaps among a single ethnicity in the same part of the country in a single year, let alone across centuries and continents.

You're a 21st century aristocrat expounding on the idea that you wouldn't get on with 16th century outlaw bikers. This is not the argument you think it is.

Being a middle class-ish American doesn't make me an aristocrat. And if I am then so is everybody else on this forum.

Their joy and suffering was similar to ours. Nothing fundamental about human nature or the human experience has changed in any way since at least the invention of writing.

Hmm, my grand dad was basically a subsistence farmer, and while it wasn't universally miserable of course, it was certainly a lot more stressful and worrisome than his kids becoming trades people. He had to spend more time tending the farm to get by than he would have in a normal job by a long long way. And that was with fertilizer and a tractor.

The further you go back, the more labor was required to do any basic task. Certainly they still took joy in what they could, but they did so with aching joints and bowed backs.

There is a reason in the rust belt than when you ask many miners do they want their sons to become miners they say no. Because they know it is a crippling, dangerous job. They want to send their kids to college so they can work in an office and not have crippling lung diseases and missing fingers.

In other words we don't have to look back hundreds of years to see that things are better now. We can see it in one or two generations back. Or you can go to see subsistence farmers in China. Humans haven't changed, but the amount of work and danger it takes to live is significantly less than it was. Technology has made material differences to people.

Now perhaps there is an argument we waste that saved time and energy in frivolous ways. But we have it to waste. They might not have had unending hell-misery, but they certainly had more hell misery in a very material way than almost any modern Westerner.

By the end of his life, my grandad in his 60's couldn't walk, was blind in one eye and the massive strong hands that could pull a calf from a cow or wrangle a sheep were gnarled and twisted with arthritis. He was in constant pain. He refused to let his kids take over the farm, because he wanted better for them. His kids are older than he was when he died and they are all much healthier than he was at the end. The human experience really has changed. Our bodies can only take a certain amount of wear, and certainly many technologies since writing have reduced the amount of wear we need to put them through.

Just because lives weren't unending hell misery and that people made do with what they could, does not mean that the very real and material benefits of human endeavour have not improved the human experience.

The further you go back, the more labor was required to do any basic task. Certainly they still took joy in what they could, but they did so with aching joints and bowed backs.

And we do so with mental illness, narcotics abuse, depression and loneliness. They were happy in different ways and miserable in different ways, but I'm not convinced they were actually fundamentally more miserable than we are in any meaningful sense, or happier either for that matter. Which is better: to lose some of your children, or to never have children at all? The former seems much superior to me, and claims to the contrary seem naïve.

There is a reason in the rust belt than when you ask many miners do they want their sons to become miners they say no. Because they know it is a crippling, dangerous job.

I'm pretty sure those miners thought that their sons could have all the good things of their own life and none of the bad things, with the idea being that the bad things wouldn't simply be replaced by other bad things. But it seems to me that, in fact, they were. Less aching joints and bowed backs. More meth zombies and fentanyl corpses, suicide, mental illness, deep alienation and so on. I am not convinced that the former outweighs the latter.

Just because lives weren't unending hell misery and that people made do with what they could, does not mean that the very real and material benefits of human endeavour have not improved the human experience.

Life has obviously changed in many ways. There are fewer of old bad things, and more of new bad things. There are likewise fewer of old good things, and more of new good things. Your argument is that there's more units of good and fewer units of bad on net, and if that's your honest impression, fair enough, but it is certainly not mine. I've had a lot of changes in my own life, and a considerable amount of both pain and joy; I note that the sources of both were generally things that were not in any meaningful sense novel. The ways I've been miserable were ways that were, in all essential particulars, available to people five thousand years ago, and likewise for the ways I've found joy. Is it truly different for you?

I'm pretty sure those miners thought that their sons could have all the good things of their own life and none of the bad things, with the idea being that the bad things wouldn't simply be replaced by other bad things. But it seems to me that, in fact, they were. Less aching joints and bowed backs. More meth zombies and fentanyl corpses, suicide, mental illness, deep alienation and so on. I am not convinced that the former outweighs the latter.

While fent and meth were nonexistent in that era, suicide, mental illness, deep alienation, and so on were not. Nor was alcoholism, which wrecks you perhaps somewhat slower than fent or meth, but just as well.

I would suggrst the main difference is that 5000 years ago, you had no choice but to endure the bad things. You couldn't avoid that your life and work and having kids was dangerous. They were inescapable. Today many people can still have the good, having kids and the like, but don't become fentanyl addicts or require mental health care..Many. many millions of people fall into the bracket and have the old joys, less of the old miseries and not much of the new.

Now at least we have that option. You've never taken joy in a truly great book, or video game or movie? Or learned some new thing about the world? Not only would those not exist 5000 years ago, you would not have had the time to enjoy them compared to today.

It seems to me that we have greatly expanded the access of good things, reduced the number of bad things..and yes we have created more bad things, but if my choice is being crippled or having to deal with the ennui of a pointless office job. One of those is worse than the other. And one can be fixed by switching jobs, or homesteading or becoming a lumberjack or whatever. You can do that and still benefit from the good things about modernity.

Thats the key diffetence to me. You can have kids and most of them won't die, nor is your wife at much risk in labour. You can live in a small close knit community. The old joys still exist. And you can not indulge in drugs, you can still worship your God or gods, you can still tell stories around a fire in the woods. Or take your kids fishing.You can just do it with a full belly instead of empty, where your life does not depend on it.

What joys of old have we truly lost? You right now can choose to do anything your forebears did. You just have a lot more options as well. You can farm, and find other like minded people. You can opt out of almost all of modern society if you wish and in varying degrees. Thats why today is better. You have that choice. 5000 years ago you did not have the option of choosing modern devices and medical care and knowledge. Today you can buy some land and a horse and choose your level of advancement. Amish? Or Mennonite? Kacyzynki or Musk? You can choose to have your family live without a washing machine or an oven or a TV. You can choose to be a farmer or to hunt for food, or pick up road kill. All of these things are possible right now today.

Actually none of what you describes strikes me as a fraction as unpleasant as the life of the average person a few centuries ago

Because you have a solely material understanding of what is good. This is the only charge against the Enlightenment that sticks, and yes it sticks just as well when Marx says it than when Evola says it. The life created by the unrestrained mercantile impulse is inhuman and torrents of blood have already been unleashed to tamper its excesses or realize its promises. All in vain so far.

If you refuse to see the problem and desire to place you head in the sand of "our system is the best to the exclusion of all others" I have nothing to say to you. Conservatism of this sort is the ideology of the damned. Change is an eternal constant that will sweep such views as it has any others.

what specifically you have in mind but most right-wing complaints about everything getting worse are just tautological complaints that everything is getting less right-wing

This is a specious argument. Morality is necessarily partial.

I can give descriptive accounts of many things, but they don't cross the is-ought gap. And any crossing is going to engender such partiality. Good that it does, because that is how we can recognize good from evil.

When Ted complains that the world is crushing the freedom and actualization of the individual, you can decide to call this right wing and oppose this slander of the industrial system because it's not fair on abstract power structures. I choose to recognize that it is true and should inform the conduct of moral men who interact with industrial society, because I'm constitutionally biased in favor of individual human welfare and I think people who aren't so biased are morally deficient.

We can still discuss descriptivisms of course.

Cyclical theories of history were always bullshit

I'm still waiting on serious refutations of Spengler, Sorokin, Glubb or Toynbee. Hell, I'm waiting on anybody to even attempt refuting Vico with any real arguments.

All that the literature shows is sneers, sweeping under the rug of political convenience and displeasure at the reality of historical patterns in the favor of a biased form of relativism that changes its favor with the winds of power. Hard hitting philosophical criticism I have not come by yet.

Vico is right. And people who dismiss his insight are behaving like creationists who cling to specific dismissals, attempt to refute specifics individually without considering the whole or grasp at epistemological traps to refuse to acknowledge the plain truth because the big picture shatters their own personal intuitions. When they don't just lie that is.

All Empires collapse. All Empires think they are eternal. You are not special.

It would take a total collapse of industrial civilization to produce the global warlordism that you dream of, and that's possible, though I don't think it's very likely.

I disagree, mainly because you are taking my words too literally and envisioning warlordism in a sense that you would historically recognize. Much like the people who are waiting in vain for a civil war complete with banners and uniforms will remain in wait forever. Things are not this way anymore. And yet they are eternally the same.

But even if we are to take such literal interpretation, it doesn't necessitate at all collapse of civilization. Not by a longshot. And you'd know this if you had lived in politically unstable countries as I have.

Lybia has electricity right now. It also has (marginal) slavery and no monopoly on violence. What would collapse in more violent circumstances is the current order of power. Institutions at large needn't be as radically affected as you seem to think.

Because you have a solely material understanding of what is good.

Why shouldn't I? I don't believe honor, glory, virtue, or tradition exist as real transcendentals beyond the human mind, and I place no value on them. They are only fictions whose persistence is simply because they produce a pleasant (and ultimately, physiological and material) sensation in the bodies of those who cling to them, and because they are useful tools to organize society in a way that also produces pleasant (and again, physiological and material) sensations in those same people. This isn't really an argument against liking those fictions, there's no rational argument why someone shouldn't, but there's no rational argument why someone should either, unless they already do. I believe the same thing about fictions from the opposite side of the aisle like freedom, democracy, equality, and tolerance, but you probably agree with me on that.

This is the only charge against the Enlightenment that sticks, and yes it sticks just as well when Marx says it than when Evola says it

I don't think Marx ever made that charge.

The life created by the unrestrained mercantile impulse is inhuman and torrents of blood have already been unleashed to tamper its excesses or realize its promises.

Inhuman meaning what? "The life" by which I imagine you mean the general state of society over the past several centuries was certainly created by humans, what exactly makes it inhuman? Is it just a personal distaste for it?

When Ted complains that the world is crushing the freedom and actualization of the individual, you can decide to call this right wing and oppose this slander of the industrial system because it's not fair on abstract power structures.

I oppose it because I think talk of freedom and actualization is mostly gobbledygook, like the aforementioned honor and equality and tolerance and glory. What Kaczynski is saying when you strip it all away is just "I don't like industrial society because it makes me upset" which is fine, but it doesn't make me upset, so we've reached an impasse, because I can't imagine any argument which would cause me to privilege what makes Ted Ted Kaczynski upset/not upset over what makes me upset/not upset.

Vico is right. And people who dismiss his insight are behaving like creationists who cling to specific dismissals, attempt to refute specifics individually without considering the whole or grasp at epistemological traps to refuse to acknowledge the plain truth because the big picture shatters their own personal intuitions.

Well I've never read Vico and didn't know who he was before you told me. The "Course of Nations" section of The New Science on internet archive is only about fifty pages; can I get away with reading that or do I have to read the whole thing? What specific insights did he have that have yet to be disproven?

I don't believe honor, glory, virtue, or tradition exist as real transcendentals beyond the human mind

Sure. But that's not the only perspective, and it doesn't have a serious claim to universalism or consensus.

I disagree. And I think this part of the modernist position robs people of something important that is an inherent part of the human condition. I don't really think we can convince each other on that point.

I don't think Marx ever made that charge.

Marx's specific criticism of capital is that it blew up the old ways of being without placing any guardrails on Greed and immiserated the lower classes by turning them from peasants with a manner of dignity into the miserable cogs of the capitalist machine. His will is explicitly to craft a religious weapon to realize the promises of the liberal bourgeoisie against their will.

Communism does not see itself as reactionary because it embraces Hegelian dialectics, but it is originally and specifically motivated by the failures of the Enlightenment to realize the idealized vision of modernity that would liberate all.

Read Rousseau and then read Marx. It is clear as water.

Inhuman meaning what?

Read the Autonomy and Surrogate Activities sections of ISAIF and you'll get a precise idea what I mean. Man wasn't meant for email jobs. To cater to your materialism I would say that man is not adapted to such things because they are too recent. Memetic evolution has outpaced biological evolution by too much and created too much tension in its vessel.

I do not take the suffering of humanity for millennia to adapt to the specific needs of society to be a reasonable course of action. Tradition holds that society should conform to us and our nature in its design. The precise opposite of progress politics which is always looking to create New Man.

I oppose it because I think talk of freedom and actualization is mostly gobbledygook

Well then there is very little for us to agree on. I can't really convince you of a visceral feeling. Explaining freedom and actualization is like explaining a joke or an artistic experience, it's only ever indirect unless you've felt it.

Build a table from scratch until you get a result you like, and then tell me that the feeling you are getting isn't real and what really matters is what's in the spreadsheets with a straight face. I personally regard that faith in numbers and quantity to be the absurd superstition.

can I get away with reading that or do I have to read the whole thing? What specific insights did he have that have yet to be disproven?

it would be best if you could read some of the scholarship around him, but ultimately if you draw out various theories of cyclical history (including the authors I've listed and others) you get overlaps that all fit into Vico's theory, which I would say is the most complete one. He doesn't go into some of the specifics other authors do (such as how collapse happen, or who founds civilizations or others minutiae), but his own broad theory is the matrix of all cyclical histories hence, and it is all very solidly supported by further scholarship on the topic. And unlike with Spengler, you don't need to read tomes of German poetic prose to get to the point. Italians really are underappreciated in their philosophical clarity.

I'm not sure his style will appeal to your materialist biases however, Sorokin's Social and Cultural Dynamics or other modernist instances of the idea may be more your speed.

I do not take the suffering of humanity for millennia to adapt to the specific needs of society to be a reasonable course of action. Tradition holds that society should conform to us and our nature in its design. The precise opposite of progress politics which is always looking to create New Man.

Once upon a time, a man lived in a valley between two cliffs. The valley was carved by the river that flowed in that place for millenia. So taken was he by the beauty and glory of what nature wrought that he set off to carve another such pair of cliffs and dig another valley.

"You fool," said his fellow villagers, "you absolute buffoon. You can't replicate nature. Even if our entire village moved to the spot you picked and toiled for generations, it would take centuries to approximate it, and then, without the river there to keep carving the path, the cliffs would collapse and undo all our hubris anyway."

A few millenia later, another man in an entirely unrelated place invented dynamite.

A very modernist tale. It has all the features of that metanarrative. Ayn Rand, Thomas More or Karl Marx could have written this, and in a way they did.

I am, as a westerner, obligated to hold dear this Faustian impulse to reach for the infinite at any cost. But as with any impulse it becomes insane when it goes too far.

The XXth century should be informative enough to those who do not fear looking at it as to the limits of Faustianism. When you seek to change your own nature to perfect it and put yourself in the place of God, all you reap is horror. This is why Faustian civilization is only stable when it is under the dominion of its own religion in Christianity incidentally, because it nails down some sense of humility into western man.

Kill God, and as Nietzche prophetized, you will bathe in the blood of millions.

Marx's specific criticism of capital...

I think this is mostly accurate but the main thing that separates Marx from the reactionaries is that he believed that fundamentally the liberal bourgeois revolutions and the transformation of the peasantry into industrial proletarians was ultimately a good thing.

Read the Autonomy and Surrogate Activities sections of ISAIF and you'll get a precise idea what I mean. Man wasn't meant for email jobs. To cater to your materialism I would say that man is not adapted to such things because they are too recent.

I do not take the suffering of humanity for millennia to adapt to the specific needs of society to be a reasonable course of action. Tradition holds that society should conform to us and our nature in its design.

What I believe Kaczynski misses here is that the humans of industrial society are not the humans of pre-industrial society. Even if we assume a pre-industrial hunter gatherer would give an "8" if asked "how fulfilled are you?" and a modern office worker would give a "5," that doesn't mean the office worker would report an "8" if made to live the life of the hunter gatherer.

I also don't buy that humanity at large is "suffering." In some ways, sure, but this suffering is not particularly greater than the suffering has ever been. How would this would even be measured in theory?

Build a table from scratch until you get a result you like, and then tell me that the feeling you are getting isn't real and what really matters is what's in the spreadsheets with a straight face.

Spreadsheets are not enjoyable and there are other things I find enjoyable like reading, exercise, or wasting time on the internet. If you want to call that actualization you can, but there's nothing special or essential about this feeling. Probably some people do like spreadsheets. "People have to do unpleasant tasks" is not a unique flaw of modernity. I think I would feel much less actualized if I was an illiterate farmer who never got to read an interesting book in his life. The oppression of nature is not preferable to the oppression of industry and the modern state; it's much worse.

I'm not sure his style will appeal to your materialist biases however,

I don't really consider myself a strict materialist. There are obviously some immaterial entities that exist like numbers or logical laws and maybe even more, which is why I don't even consider myself an atheist, but I don't see any reason to include human ideological constructs like the ones I've mentioned in that category.

the main thing that separates Marx from the reactionaries is that he believed that fundamentally the liberal bourgeois revolutions and the transformation of the peasantry into industrial proletarians was ultimately a good thing.

Notably, traditionalists mostly believe these revolutions, though massive tragedies, to also have been inevitable.

This is where linear and cyclical time meet. Change is the constant and all regimes are transitory. Hegel things we are synthesizing the perfect regime through these transitions, Calvin that we are descending to the depths of sin until redemption, and Aristotle that we are just playing out endless seasons.

Change is a good thing. It is good that winter follows autumn or summer would never happen. But winter is still harsh and terrible.

the humans of industrial society are not the humans of pre-industrial society

I don't think you can make a convincing argument that this is true. Evolution on the genetic level is not that fast, and we can see in all the pathologies of modern life precisely the maladies of people who have crafted en environment they are not suited to both psychologically and physiologically. This is what Ted denounces, that we made our bed of autism and tooth decay and are decided to invent and sell solutions to the problems we created that only make us less adapted to our environment. And Land may be right that really we are terraforming Earth for something else. But that something else is not humanity.

I don't like that. I think we can have technology without this problem. And that the way to do this is to reembrace what we have always done to moderate the excesses that have led us here and embrace a wholesome view of our nature.

there's nothing special or essential about this feeling

I couldn't disagree more. You may as well say there is nothing special or essential about the feeling you get when you are interacting with a great piece of art.

There are obviously some immaterial entities that exist like numbers or logical laws

So you are a Kantian of sorts. What is then your stance on Natural Law?

This is what Ted denounces, that we made our bed of autism and tooth decay and are decided to invent and sell solutions to the problems we created that only make us less adapted to our environment.

This is a common critique ("We are creating problems which we then have to solve") but I don't really see what the issue with that is. What's wrong with creating new problems and then solving them with new methods?

I don't like that. I think we can have technology without this problem.

I doubt it. I think Marx was right at least that culture and society are largely a reflection of underlying material conditions. The customs and morals that developed in a pastoral society 3000 years ago cannot be freely transplanted onto the 21st century. If they could, it would not last very long. And I doubt there are new moral systems that could be developed to significantly ameliorate the problems of modernity. The only salvation is to hope humanity can technologize itself out of the novel problems it's created for itself by earlier technologizing, and I don't see any problem with that.

I couldn't disagree more. You may as well say there is nothing special or essential about the feeling you get when you are interacting with a great piece of art.

Well, I agree with that too. I don't think there's anything qualitatively different between the enjoyment a person gets from watching Marvel slop #28493 and beholding the Reims Cathedral. And I say that as someone who doesn't like Marvel movies and would probably prefer visiting the Reims Cathedral.

So you are a Kantian of sorts. What is then your stance on Natural Law?

I'm vaguely familiar with both the Lockean kind and the Aristotlean kind from readings in college and a few Catholic apologist books, but I don't recall being convinced by the idea that metaphysical rights or duties of any sort exist.

More comments

Except that every civilization that has fallen in the past believed exactly that about themselves. The Romans believed themselves civilized and different from the barbarians of the past and those current barbarians around them. The Greeks thought the same of themselves, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Turks, etc. if you’d have walked the streets of any of those cities, they would have been pretty sophisticated and full of well educated people with a good bit of division of labor, lavish entertainment systems, good roads and communication systems. We can do what they did with muscle power by using machines. We have electricity and computer and robots — which we use to do what the Romans did with slaves.

And I think honestly that no civilization, even one a million times more advanced than we are today is exempt from history. History doesn’t stop, and a civilization that ignores reality long enough will find itself again facing the iron laws of physics and mathematics and biological realities. And this is the fundamental problem that civilizations face— eventually you build up a system that doesn’t work when pushed up against reality.

Except that every civilization that has fallen in the past believed exactly that about themselves. T

The ancients had a pretty fatalistic view of history. They tended to view themselves as degraded versions of their ancestors, hence the stories of bygone golden ages. The idea of eternal progress is largely a Christian one. Furthermore the life of the average Roman was closer to the life of an Egyptian 1000 years earlier or a medieval 1000 years later than any of them are to the life of the average US citizen in 2024. It really is different this time.

Obviously modern civilization will not last forever, just because nothing does, whether it degrades into something resembling a past state or advances into something else. But that doesn't really make the fate of the Romans or the Turks instructive.

The idea of eternal progress is largely a Christian one.

It is?

It's not unique to Christianity, but the Western form of linear history which seized the minds of Whigs and the like definitely sees its origins in Christian metaphysical views of time contained between Genesis and Judgement Day.

Though interestingly, in the mind of Christians that linear progression was very much not eternal or infinite, this world will exist for a finite amount of time until His return. The advent of secularism didn't destroy these metaphysics but judgement got replaced by apotheosis and the awesome power of the machine convinced many they were on a road to a heaven on Earth.

Saint Thomas More was not a Buddhist.

The western form of linear time does not solely see it in such things. If the point is merely the linearity (as opposed to cyclicality) of time, you see that in the sentence immediately prior to that I quoted before. If the point is that it's linear with a good ending, well, that is a little better of a match, but Christianity is decidedly unclear about whether things will be getting better or not prior to the return of Christ. On the other hand, you can see a sort of enlightenment-style linearity in Aeschylus' Oresteia, several hundred years before the coming of Christ, where the cyclical vengeance of the furies is tamed and put an end to by the enlightened and civilized gods of Athens.

Of course, I don't imagine Aeschylus was the direct precursor of modern progress—I think that's probably closer to being a result of technological growth and advances in scientific knowledge giving people the often accurate sense that they knew more and could do more than all who came before them.

I work with quite a few young men. They generally have girlfriends. The older ones (let's say 30+ years old) generally have wives and own a home. A few even have children.

There's some subset of sad incels. I somehow don't personally know them. The median young man I know seems to have little despair.

You're not the first one to make a comment like this on this topic, and I think it's pretty clear that this type of anecdotal analysis just doesn't work for something like this due to the availability bias. How many young men do you socialize with that are so isolated and lonely that they never socialize with anyone? How many do you work with who don't even go out of their home to work at a job? Obviously, definitionally zero. The types of people being discussed here are specifically the types of people who you wouldn't notice in everyday life.

Yeah, it's like the "I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon" sentiment back in the days (I know the quote isn't technically real, but anyway). This isn't meant as a dig at the original commenter; this is a simple facet of social life anywere. I'd also add that despairing men have all the reasons in the world to hide their despair in meatspace. Of course we see little of it. Also, the stats prove that the ratio of single, unattached men is growing.

It's hard to get a good grip on statistics in so manipulated an epistemic setting as ours, but given what does get reported, I'm going to go on a limb and say that the median young man you know isn't the median young man. Otherwise those reported rates of celibacy are either impossible or men are mysteriously under-reporting relationships.

To say nothing of home ownership rates.

The median young man I know is struggling to get by and largely celibate. But then again he's also highly likely to be a homosexual and have a specific set of religious beliefs and hobbies, because nobody's friend circle is representative of the population at large.

Besides, friendless people have literally p = 0 to be your friend by definition.

Considering that the numbers that initiated the "sex recession talk" were still at sexlessness for young people (ie. sex less often than monthly - even that would include many people that would not be "true incels") being around 30 % among young people, it would imply that the median young man is indeed having at least some sex and the median young man you know not being as representative as the median young men /u/TIRM knows (or, indeed, the median young men that I know).

Broadly agreed. At this point in my life the people I know are largely other parents that I meet through some school or child event or my coworkers. And we are mostly a cabal of tech workers.

So selecting for employed engineers, they date around in their 20s and settle down early to mid 30s. Broadly speaking. I know some these people recently bought properties with their spouses or fiances, etc. Multiple coworkers have in the past few months aged into the "get married and buy a place" stage of life. No kids yet from this group, incidentally. Good thing my Chinese coworkers are picking up the slack in the having children department.

The couple of hopeless dweebs I know (no offense, decent guys and coworkers, but being realistic here) are Indian immigrants. They both got wifes with a little help (coercion? hard boot on the ass?) from their families.

If we made some horribly unrepresentative polling of just my experiences, I'd say young people do nothing but work and date and eventually marry. And I would list off examples to support that.

I don’t think it’s un fixable. It’s just that we need to build those things into society in a constructive way rather than decrying any visible manifestations of masculinity as fundamentally disordered. There are lots of options: full contact sports, hunting, martial arts, perhaps in the near future space exploration or building undersea colonies. Telling a boy with a bent toward masculinity to play rugby or take karate channels the energy into things that are good for male bonding and health.

All that stuff is good, but none of it can really replace the visceral knowledge that you are directly responsible for keeping yourself and your family alive, which was reality for the vast majority of men for the vast majority of history, but no longer.

Perhaps something like William James’ “the moral equivalent of war”

There's been a marked shift to the right for young men in the past couple of years, while women have gone in the other direction. It can't all just be the industrial revolution.

According to Gallup: U.S. Women Have Become More Liberal; Men Mostly Stable.

It can't all just be the industrial revolution.

"The story goes like this..."

What we are seeing now is the culmination of the commodification of sex and the relations between the sexes which started long ago but could not get fully in stride before the invention of the pill, hormonal therapy and the ideological advances that allowed for the deterritorialization of all sexed institutions (including marriage, youth clubs, and anything in between) and of sex itself.

Capital/Industrial Society/Modernity couldn't do this without the Internet. Now it has done it. And here we are.

the pill

How big of a shift was this actually?

Like it wasn’t the first birth control method, and social acceptability of contraception started to increase with the lambeth accords. It seems like the pill was left of a shift and more of a stepping stone along the path.

Some argue other inventions before it were more impactful, but all I've seen were in the same vein and pursuing the same ultimate goal.

I'm not sure that contraception for unmarried people was within the Overton window until after the pill. And while the timing method works well, it requires diligence.

Also the behavioral changes of hormonal birth control might be pretty impactful.

Contraception for unmarried people wasn’t socially accepted in 1960 either.

There's been a marked shift to the right for young men in the past couple of years

Eh, I’m not convinced. It looks like they just haven’t gone as far left as the women have; that’s different from shifting to the right in absolute terms

There has definitely been a bit of a shift recently (combined I'm sure with a great deal of power-level-hiding) but the median man seems mostly demoralized and indifferent to political issues, and more focused on his own life and interests. That's just the feeling I get from the stats and my own anecdotal experience. Women more universally seem to have a stronger sense of political identity, whether to the left or to the right.

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