site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   15218 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 6, 2025

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.

Palingenetic Ultra-Nationalist

Can you elaborate on this?

For clarity I don’t think Trump is actually a fascist but below I say he often rhymes with one.

I’m looking up this terminology and I think it still fits.

Roger Griffin argues that fascism uses the "palingenetic myth" to attract large masses of voters who have lost their faith in traditional politics and religion by promising them a brighter future under fascist rule.[1][2]

More radical movements often want to overthrow the old order, which has become decadent and alien to the common man.[1][2]

The palingenetic myth can also possibly stand for a return to a golden age in the country's history so that the past can be a guidebook to a better tomorrow, with an associated regime that superficially resembles a reactionary one.[1][2]

Palingenesis being a word meaning rebirth. The palingenetic myth as I understand it seems to be about a rebirth of strength, vitality, and greatness from a society which is seen as decadent.

That all sounds like classic MAGA to me.

Again I don’t think Trump is a true fascist so I’m just curious how you use the palingenetic ultranationalist definition to disqualify him.

Not attacking your position just trying to understand it. But this definition makes me more concerned about Donald Trump, not less.

He's not "ultra" because he's not a totalitarian, and he doesn't structure his political action according to cyclical history that can be forced to happen through will.

He stops short of it so you can say things directionally, but that's true of literally every single effective politician. Fascism is a specific thing, it's not when people with nostalgia do thongs

You can be a totalitarian without being a fascist (Stalin who believed in linear history) and you can be a palingenetic nationalist without being a fascist (Evola who did not believe in mass politics).

Trump is a nationalist businessman with mild autocratic tendencies. A common archetype of US ruler. The biggest myth surrounding him is actually that he's anything special or novel (relatively speaking) when you can throw a stone in US history and hit ten guys like that.

I think one might put it like "Trump isn't Hitler, but if there was an American Hitler, he'd probably look like a more racist and fascist Trump". Trump's not a palingenetic ultranationalist, but he's a somewhat palingenetic nationalist ("somewhat" mostly meaning that there's less need for palingenesis in America, which is arguably still in the height of its national power). Just crank his various attributes up to eleven, and you get an American variation of fascism - naturally different from German and Italian versions due to the considerable national peculiarities of base American nationalism, just as Italian and German fascisms differed from each other due to the national pecularities of base German/Italian nationalisms.

Trump's not a palingenetic ultranationalist, but he's a somewhat palingenetic nationalist ("somewhat" mostly meaning that there's less need for palingenesis in America, which is arguably still in the height of its national power).

I agree with you overall, but I think it’s pretty central to the American right’s worldview that the nation is currently deeply decadent and that a palingenetic movement is sorely needed.

I’m not a fan of palingenetic nationalism as a definition of fascism because the American right are nearly all palingenetic nationalists and I don’t think that they’re all fascists.

Maybe the difference is that they’d need to be palingenetic extremists who value the rebirth over the tradition of democracy. That’s a good definition perhaps.

American right are nearly all palingenetic nationalists and I don’t think that they’re all fascists.

Fascism is palingenetic ultranationalism plus totalitarianism. One of the things that has a lot of Trump critics sweating is that Trumpism is exactly that sort of reactionary populist movement and Trump personally makes lots of authoritarian noises. Combine that with Trump's lack of inhibition or scruples and the uncritical devotion of many of his followers and it's easy to see why someone might start throwing around the f-word. Is it fascist? No. Is it fascish? Yeah, kinda.

Should be noted that the Trump movement is currently at a new situation with the strong influx of Musk and other tech right types, who are really not palingenetic at all in their thought, and are strongly future-oriented.

“We have to destroy the woke mind virus so we can save western civilization and eventually get to the stars”

The American right is not consistently palingenetic- lots of American right wingers want to go back to the fifties, sure, but the libertarian right definitely doesn’t and there are plenty of hardcore isolationists and secessionists on the actually far right, and there’s always been an ‘America is awesome right now’ current.

That’s fair, but similar to socialists, I honestly rarely see actual libertarians outside of Internet forums. They just don’t seem to have much voice in American politics.

Maybe America will have a Milei figure to come along to shake things up at some point.

Edit: like the right often wants to reduce government spending, sure. But for example, it gets done in a DOGE fashion where figures such as Elon and Vivek are both very rhetorically palingenetic. The mind virus is destroying western civilization and we need to save it so we can go to the stars! In fact the more I think about it, an expansionist United States with Elon style techno-saviorism at the helm is a pretty credible model for the emergence of a 21st century American fascism. We’re gonna be great, we just need to destroy the woke mind virus, secure Greenland and the canal, master AGI, make a few cryptos go to the moon so that the peons are happy, and then get to the stars ourselves. The woke will try to interfere, but at a certain point might makes right and it’s our destiny and mission to shut them out of the political process.

Honestly this wouldn’t surprise me to see, lol.

Yes, actual libertarians are underrepresented among the republican base. Your median conservative hardliner is some kind of fifties revivalist, at least for a generous definition of fifties revivalist.

But there's plenty of far right wingers who are not that. The secessionists and hardcore isolationists aren't. The 'Murica, fuck yeah' ultra-patriots aren't- they think America is already awesome, democrats just need to stop harshing the vibe.

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