site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 2, 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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There’s very little you can do to prevent being murdered like this other than not be worth killing, and that’s a tall order for Inner Party members for reasons inherent to being Inner Party.

Depends on who you consider "Inner Party members." Nobody tries to assassinate, say, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, despite the IRS's unpopularity.

I remember reading a thread on Tumblr discussing how we remember the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand that launched World War I, but we forget that political assassinations were not uncommon in turn-of-the-century Europe, compared to after the World Wars, mostly of people we would consider rather "mid-level" in the government — not notable enough for the sort of fame-seeking that motivates most assassination attempts on heads of state. The question was raised of why this changed, and the general answer was that in Europe (or at least parts outside Western Europe) back then, even ministry heads and upper-level bureaucrats were members of the hereditary aristocracy — personally important beyond their government office, and not readily replaceable.

Nowadays, though, such jobs are held by interchangeable human cogs in the bureaucratic machine. Take out the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and his or her #2 will be in their office within the week, and the operation of the IRS will proceed without the slightest hiccup. Hit the J. Edgar Hoover building with a truck full of explosives*, and the rest of the FBI continues with business as usual.

This is why I disagree with our own @KulakRevolt's Substack piece "Assassination War & the Death of Bureaucracy," because, long before assassinations of IRS agents "cause a Johnstown style 2/3 flight from the profession," (which even he estimates would take "merely 100 IRS agents" being killed annually), you'll long since run out of assassins willing to die to take out utterly-replaceable human cogs, only to see the machine grind on undaunted.

Sure, the mostly-figurehead merely-elected politicians whose names and faces are known to the public might have to worry, but then, see the "mostly figurehead" part.

*Example inspired by Vox Day's claim in this post that the Oklahoma City attack was a "false flag" precisely because it was in Oklahoma City:

In other words, a real terrorist attack on the FBI isn’t going to be in some random field office; the Oklahoma City truck could have just as easily have been parked in front of the J. Edgar Hoover Building. If there is a false flag attack in London, it would probably be on some trivial, but vaguely symbolic structure that was already scheduled for demolition. An aging football stadium scheduled for replacement would make an ideal candidate.

McVeigh picked the Murrah Building as a target because that was the field office where the Waco raid was planned.

Sure, which puts paid to Vox's "false flag" narrative. But it instead highlights another weakness of assassination and terrorism as political tools in this sort of modern context: the choosing of the symbolic over the effective. To borrow Max Weber's terms, it's favoring "values rationality" (Wertrationalität) over "goal rationality" (Zweckrationalität); that is, what "sends a message" or embodies a particular value over what actually achieves a concrete end.

But the point of both terrorism and many partisan actions is to create fear, provoke a vast overreaction by the victim, and to inspire further action from others through what 19th century Russian nihilist social revolutionaries called “Propaganda of the Deed”. If Osama Bin Laden had secretly bought the Hostess company and increased the amount of sugar and trans fats in each Twinkie by 10 percent, he could have killed far more Americans than 9/11 did, and he would probably still be alive. But I doubt that would have fulfilled any of his political or strategic goals.

and to inspire further action from others through what 19th century Russian nihilist social revolutionaries called “Propaganda of the Deed”

Except when has this ever actually happened? My understanding, from what I've read on the topic, is that "Propaganda of the Deed" never actually worked, not like the revolutionaries hoped, and was in fact counterproductive.

(If I thought such an act would inspire others on the same side to follow suit, well…)