site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   28318 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 23, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Wait, that edit just confuses your case.

You’ve argued that anyone sympathetic to Eisenman is either stupid, deluded, or evil. How does the taste for Lovecraft fit in? Aren’t these people specifically “moving on from Eisenman”?

I notice that none of the actual quotes you give talk about causing pain or madness or “psychic damage.” The closest is Eisenman romanticizing disharmony, which he justifies not as painful, but as true. Gnostic bullshit, yes. Blueprints for R’lyeh, not so much.

I think you’re reaching. Brutalists, Eisenstans, and today’s architects don’t all fit in this group you call “socialists.”

How does the taste for Lovecraft fit in? Aren’t these people specifically “moving on from Eisenman”?

I think his point is that things have gone even further from the merely normal extremes of "pain" or "discomfort." Architects are now, by their own description, deliberately trying to induce madness with their designs, which to me would seem to be somehow even further beyond the pale than the previous goals of "pain" and "discomfort."

But they’re not. As best as I can tell, Gage said “imagin[ing] architecture that similarly alludes to a deeper or alternate view of reality is an appealing opportunity.” That’s got to be the most boring possible version of madness.

imagin[ing] architecture that similarly alludes to a deeper or alternate view of reality is an appealing opportunity.

That's just doublespeak. The sentence is so abstracted that it doesn't mean anything. Madness is literally just an alternate view of reality.

Why would one assume that "to imagine architecture that similarly alludes to a deeper or alternate view of reeality is an appealing opportunity" means "I want to literally drive you gibberingly insane" unless one already is predisposed to believe those architects are communist supervillains?

The use of the term "Lovecraftian," as described by the original comment you were replying to.

Here's the fullest quote I could find.

Lovecraft uses language to imply the existence of an architecture that is curious, strange, and challenges notions of the architectural norm. To try to design such a Cyclopean city or to draw an acute angle that behaves obtusely would be a lost cause, but to imagine architecture that similarly alludes to a deeper or alternate view of reality is an appealing opportunity that runs counter to the simplification of big singular ideas through reductive diagrams. Perhaps instead of accurately representing the shallow, architecture might now be called upon to provide a sketchy, rough outline of something deeper.

Read plainly, this suggests that the author would like to create "curious and strange" architecture, not "madness-inciting" architecture. "But it says Lovecraft therefore they must mean they want to replicate the worst aspects of Lovecraftian" is an extremely motivated reading.

Note also, Lovecraft's opinion on what is madness-inciting seems to be a lot wider than median.

Lovecraft uses language to imply the existence of an architecture that is curious, strange, and challenges notions of the architectural norm.

Again, this is doublespeak. Cthulhu rising from the sea can also be "curious" or "strange." Speaking of Cthulhu, here's an excerpt from "The Call of Cthulhu" describing the drowned city of R'lyeh: "Then, driven ahead by curiosity in their captured yacht under Johansen’s command, the men sight a great stone pillar sticking out of the sea, and in S. Latitude 47° 9′, W. Longitude 126° 43′ come upon a coast-line of mingled mud, ooze, and weedy Cyclopean masonry which can be nothing less than the tangible substance of earth’s supreme terror—the nightmare corpse-city of R’lyeh, that was built in measureless aeons behind history by the vast, loathsome shapes that seeped down from the dark stars."

Here's a description of the architecture of The Elder Things from "At the Mountains of Madness": "The effect was that of a Cyclopean city of no architecture known to man or to human imagination, with vast aggregations of night-black masonry embodying monstrous perversions of geometrical laws and attaining the most grotesque extremes of sinister bizarrerie".

If your reading of those passages is that these places simply "[challenge] notions of the architectural norm," then I don't know what else to say.

But it says Lovecraft therefore they must mean they want to replicate the worst aspects of Lovecraftian

"Lovecraftian" specifically refers to a type of dread, terror, awe, and hopelessness associated with the knowledge of humanity's utter insignificance when compared to the alien creatures, gods, and beings within the unknown universe. This knowledge, in Lovecraft's stories, generally drives normal people to insanity. So when an architect invokes a "Lovecraftian" design in his or her architecture, you'll have to excuse me if I don't believe that he or she is trying to produce something that stops at "curious and strange."

If I'm being the best faith possible, it can be the case that the architect had merely misread Lovecraft and had invoked him to merely tie his or her works to something recognizable, but if that's the case, the architect would still merely be inept.

I don't think our understanding of what "doublespeak" means is the same.

When someone refers to Lovecraftian architecture as "curious and strange", but does not mention the "driving normal people to insanity" part, there can be two primary readings of that.

  1. They're a supervillain who is plainly stating that they want to drive people insane, except that for some reason their plain statement did not mention the insanity part except for by association with Lovecraft.
  2. They disagree with Lovecraft on the mood his architecture must evoke, and believe it is (for example) very cool rather than maddening.

If I'm being the best faith possible, I'm going to assume 2. You might interpret it as "misreading" Lovecraft, but I do not hold the man in such high authority as to be indisputable.

More comments

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