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 -
Firstly thanks for remaining me to post it on the right thread, I posted it on an older thread and got no views lol
My understanding is a little rudimentary. Woke isn't like Marxism, it doesn't have a single point of authority defining it so I would assume that most just describe the far left bent with it. I want to discuss this too but getting a correct definition down that people agree with is the first thing one needs to do to.
Obsession with oppressed oppressor dynamic is a good rough definition but it seems to lack something.
The right has a lot of hateful losers, no doubt about that. James made a mistake in picking fights with well meaning smart people who understand his worldview better than him.
I discovered Moldbug that year thanks to the distributist on YouTube. People just want to uncover truth and have nice things. For a while 90s liberalism seemed amazing. The post sexual revolution US that has something for all is still seen as this nostalgic landmark but these are unstable positions. I agree with Yarvin on most issues and do look forward to a post liberal liberalism or discourse on it.
What do you think is a good definition of woke? Also because of the right getting some footing, punching right is now not seen as a good thing to do, Lindsay really made a mistake.
Marxism also doesn’t have “a single point of authority defining it.” It’s a whole corpus of thought, with hundreds of writers (maybe thousands) chiming in and adding their analysis and refinement of other writers’ ideas. It’s like how Christianity has long transcended sola scriptura and includes a massive world of commentary and schisms and church authorities and whatnot. “Woke”, to the extent that the word is anything other than a boo light, undoubtedly refers to a specific offshoot or sect of Marxism.
Sola Scriptura is actually extremely rare in Christianity; both Catholic and Orthodox Christians believe their church predates the codification and indeed writing of the scriptures and doctrine-heavy protestants in practice hold to definite-enough interpretations of scripture that tradition and church authority play a strong role(and have for a very long time; the Augsburg confession was literally written by Martin Luther). But almost all of these Christian branches have a single point of authority defining them, indeed rather notoriously so in the case of Catholicism.
The Protestants would also affirm that their church predates the codification and writing of the scriptures (at least of the new testament).
The Augsburg confession was written by Melanchthon. Edit: Luther did play a role in its drafting.
But this is pretty close to being true, at least, if you're construing sola scriptura as talking about use of other authorities in general, rather than whether there exist other final authorities accessible to the modern church.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link