This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I appreciate the comments everybody else left here. That said, most of them miss the forest for the trees. The question itself is incorrect. It's a nice thought exercise, but all of those arguments come up again and again in communist vs. capitalist debates and they don't make a dent.
The reason why those arguments don't work is that you can never (or at least very rarely) logic away ideas that were created by feelings. The reason why the question itself is incorrect is that "normies" do not exist.
Feels over reals
Imagine that you are feeling bad for one reason or another. It might be a mental health issue; it might be some kind of physical health issue; it might be some kind of issue at work; it might be some kind of personal issue that deeply affects you emotionally. When you spend time on algorithmic social media, you are constantly exposed to fringe ideas (like communism). Content creators and regular posters might post something that you empathize with - a meme, a video, a TikTok, a "my boss bad" post, whatever, it doesn't matter. This post registers on an emotional level: "Actually, it's the world that is bad and unfair, and it's not just my personal issue. We live in a society where everyone experiences this". You see that a lot of people are feeling the same way as you did. The thoughts that might go through one's head are:
After that, the algorithm picks up that you liked this particular fringe idea and feeds you more. Then, you fall into a pipeline, where you are served more content. Maybe you join an online community that posts memes about communism. Gradually, by way of memes, you get inoculated against all of the arguments that people have provided here. Normies start reading effortposts. Normies start reading Marxist/anarchist economics books, which retroactively provide a twisted logic to the emotions they are experiencing. At this point, they have both moral and logical arguments to delude themselves with. One can't logically argue against someone who fell into a fringe ideology pipeline - they have all of the answers they need.
The logical arguments everybody makes here do not make any emotional impact. Try to imagine yourself: which one is a more appealing pattern of thinking for a depressed person, for example?
The former is easy. The latter is hard. Thus, it's simpler to continue taking the path of least resistance: more festering in online communities and commiserating, more of trying to find how a magical imaginary society would work that wouldn't make people feel bad in the way that I feel bad. None of those things require hard work to fix your life.
This is why Jordan Peterson resonates with young men so well. His arguments first make sense on an emotional level. Hearing him describe societal challenges young men experience is validating for young men, who then proceed to take his advice on how to fix their lives. The same way, hearing communists describe societal challenges is also validating, but instead of providing actionable advice, the communists rope you into a cult that worships the destruction of society as we know it.
I haven't ever seen libertarians or conservatives or even liberals address the societal challenges in the same way as communists address them: on a feels level. On an emotional level. Instead, we get Pinker, for example, who says that everything is actually good, or at least, much better than it was before. Pinker makes a logical argument directed at someone experiencing an emotional state. Maybe some people can be logic'd out of the emotional state, but it seems like it's not very effective.
Normies do not exist
Memes are ubiquitous. Everybody is online. Spending time on social media is the norm nowadays. The majority of the social media landscape is dominated by algorithmic feeds. Algorithmic feeds have become the default way to kill time for many. Social media algorithms play a crucial role in radicalization: they gradually expose users to more extreme content and potentially push them towards fringe ideas. This process of algorithmic radicalization doesn't discriminate – it affects people across the spectrum, not just a select few. So, the idea of a "normie" assumes a stable, average individual untouched by internet culture. In reality, this kind of individual doesn't exist, and everyone is influenced by online discourse to some degree.
The discourse itself has changed: 4chan's cultural norms have migrated to the internet at large. Hasan Piker is the largest streamer on Twitch. Among progressives, how many do we think are communists who maintain a kayfabe like Hasan? Yesterday's fringe is today's mainstream.
So who are the "normies"? Regular people spending time on the mainstream internet? Just regular people in your life? If that is so, they are already online and probably regularly spend time in a space that promotes a fringe ideology that is appealing on an emotional level, be it MAGA, Blue MAGA, progressivism, trans ideology, or communism. Take this socialist substack series (which is now, unfortunately, paywalled) and see for yourself where 19-year-olds learn their communist ideas. One of the interviewees' answer is Instagram, and I was shocked that even a "normie" platform like Instagram has full-blown socialist, communist, and anarchist communities.
Ignoring all of the above is ignoring the social reality: our logical arguments will be drowned out by the sea of emotion that your average normie is exposed to from a very early age.
If logic doesn't work, what does? Just spitballing ideas, so no concrete suggestions:
E:
You just said that right after a section which said "most people are affected by emotional impact, not logical arguments like you guys are". That's pretty much "normies exist".
Acting like a rationalist is weird. Being convinced like a rationalist would be convinced is doubly so.
"Normies" as defined by "not rationalist/everybody else" isn't obvious to me. In general, the word is used differently in different contexts and for me the default meaning is "a normal person who isn't too online". This is useless for the context of trying to convince people to accept that communism is bad because everybody is online.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link