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 -
Lindsay reminds me a lot of Eric Weinstein, only if Weinstein’s IQ was subtracted by 3 SDs (that’s not an insult, by the by, it’s just that Weinstein is legitimately galaxy-brained and Lindsay is much closer to the median American).
All of that makes it much more of a travesty that Weinstein is basically doing what Lindsay is doing for the ‘dissident right’ to the actual mainstream right; he couldn’t even bring himself to vote for Trump due to the intensely ingrained patterns of liberalism that have been cemented meticulously in his youth, and Linsday continuing down the lines of calling anyone that actually suspects different races of having real contrasting qualities from each other ‘communist’ is just a diminutive version of that, projected against the further right. Not only do these counterarguments not make sense in either case: in the former, Weinstein couldn’t bring himself to vote for Trump due to his personal character, despite his praise for characters like Feynman (going so far as to call him a ‘god’), a strip-club-enjoying woman beater, and in the latter Marxists obviously sees any deflection to race as a dividing issue as a distraction from actual class struggle. I would respect Lindsay if he attempted to actually make even the flimsy libertarian argument that National Socialism (which is not descriptive of the entirety of the dissident right) just replaces class consciousness with race consciousness, even if that’s totally reductionist (terminally it’s still an argument, as opposed to whatever Lindsay is doing in photoshopping Marx pages into arguing for things that are totally antithetical to Marx).
I respectfully disagree, I've spoken with eric once and he was very nice, I still have to be honest and my opinion of him has significantly lowered since then. He feels very much like Lex, someone who seems completely astroturfed and genuinely thinks he's super competent without having done anything deserving of that aura.
Good chance Lindsays math PhD is more rigorous than Weinstein’s given that every physics or math guy whose come across it has criticised it, his grievance studies gimmick was more impactful than Eric's liberal IDW arc. He never revealed what he did at thiel capital or his days post Harvard and how he suspiciously left thiel capital during thiel's FBI issues.
Lindsay and Eric were never a part of the right, certainly never dissidents, eric was uncomfortable around the name Curtis Yarvin on Lexs podcast. James actually tried something and willingly talks to people, no matter how bad his positions maybe, he's not self censoring as much as eric who has takes how he can relate to black people because he's slow and whilst he didn't imply that blacks are slow, but that he was stigmatized and hence relates to them. This has to be a joke, how can a man seriously write this and expect to be taken seriously.
@IGI-111 take on this is correct. Both of them are 90s liberal, they are agaisnt any conservative value, let alone dissident or reactionary. Him getting publicly refuted is a good sign of progress imo.
Weinstein definitely was astroturfed, probably pushed by Thiel of all people, which basically cements in my mind that Weinstein is effectively a transitionary figure and was used for that purpose rather than anything else. My mental distance between Weinstein and Lindsay in terms of their intelligence is simply due to the fact that Weinstein seems to have been good enough to initially get within the circles to be pushed, while Lindsay just seems like someone who actually has an agenda he wants to carry out for the greater-good; Weinstein as opposed is just someone who saw an opportunity to talk about whatever he wanted, and clearly was verbally intelligent to have people swindled to the point where they believed that he was intellectual enough that he was someone they should listen to.
Lindsay seems to me to be someone seeing this entire Thiel-structure become visible after it had such a long time fermenting and attempting to put the genie back in the bottle, while Weinstein seems to be resigned to the fact that what he has is going to be the best he’s ever going to get; his tweets talking about how the people on the periphery of the administration are not calling him is another example of this, as he has obviously been left behind due to his unwillingness to accept the times as they’re changing. Weinstein is never going to change physics, or ‘bring people to the stars’ (which he sees as a calling from his Jewish destiny). His dream would be a transhumanist space-liberalism which Lindsay would call communist due to wanting to transcend the human condition through technological revolution or whatever. The only ‘rightism’ that Weinstein ever participated in was specifically anti-establishment in instrumentality only, as opposed to Lindsay in his view of terminal values being liberal only.
Lindsay doesn’t want that future, and the other people who do realized that the current structure of things isn’t good enough to actually get there; unlimited hoards of third-wordlists aren’t going to generate a population capable of creating the unified field theory as the center of the bell-curve is 80 IQ. This is the big filter, and the thing that IMO is actually the end of all these things which these people are seeing and yet being numb towards.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link