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 -
Eisenman is also a bit of an odd figure to play the part of the socialist hell-bent on the cultural destruction of the west, I doubt he has much sympathy for anything approaching the doctrinaire socialist reorganisation of the economy. He's also a bit too in love with the work of Speer and the italian fascists (see his book on Terragni). In this interview, he largely claims his personal political affinities run conservative and notes his American projects were mostly funded from the right. This also includes this very funny aside:
To the extent I've had much impression of his public persona it has been one that is a bit self-obsessed and if aesthetically radical at one point in time, never really had a broader political project and had since settled back into cantankerousness. The other thing I remember from him recently is him comparing Trump's buildings to Stalin's architecture.
It seems to me that it is far from uncommon for people to be 'high-decouplers' regarding the linguistic/semiotic/philosophical/epistemological observations of the postmodernists and deconstrutionists like Foucault and Derrida, and their political and economic positions. Another classic example: the IDF's use of D&G
I don't think much decoupling is actually required. Both Foucault and Derrida had a relation to orthodox Marxism that was complicated at best, and both have been criticized by more strictly doctrinaire leftists as being "conservative" (not in the Fox News sense of course, but in the sense of providing insufficient support to the cause, and being liable to interpretations that could aid the enemy). So it's not surprising that people from all over the political spectrum could take inspiration from their work.
This talk also happened ten years before Specters of Marx.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link