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 -
I don’t know who he actually is and what is dr x but what makes you think angry young men cannot be closer to truth than calm old men?
Dissident Right X (formerly Twitter).
More options
Context Copy link
When an angry young man acts like a manipulative old man, it muddies the waters.
We've no particular reason to believe Kulak is actually angry, given Kulak's own professed standards of what people should do if actually angry over issues of social immorality. These includes violent, illegal actions that get people arrested / thrown into jail / exposed to significant violence and personal risk. We know Kulak has not done these things, because when opportunities have arisen- including opportunities in the past (such as the Canada trucker protests) that he called for violent resistance over- he neither joined or acted violently.
Instead, Kulak calls on other people to act violently. In fact, he makes a deliberate strategy of it, much as he has admitted his deliberate rhetorical strategies in other social media spheres (such as his technique for luring in leftist critiques by feinting a weaker position to invite a weaker critique for him to counter-attack).
These are not the characteristics of an actually angry young man. They are, however, classic characteristics of older men who cold-bloodedly use escalatory rhetoric to get other people angry, and manipulatable, for their own ends. Sometimes these ends are ideological, see the 20th century, and sometimes these ends are personal profit motive, see Kulak's substack. A historical example would be the old man by the fire who counsels young men of the merits to going off to fight and die bravely in battle to protect their homes- not only is he not going to join them, and not only is he the one benefiting if they die to protect his place by the fire, but if he had followed that advice himself he wouldn't be there to give it.
So when an angry young man does not act like an angry young man, does not follow the advice he gives to angry young men while making them angry, and stands to personally benefit from angry young men following his advice while he abstains...
Well, it's not impossible for it to be closer to the truth, but there's a lack of any particular reason to believe so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link