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 -
Put it on top of the Dissident Upset: Not Enough People Radicalized pile, Bob.
More seriously, the tone of this sounds like things have gone down hill. The one chance to tear down the machine is slipping through our fingers. My question for people familiar with his work: can someone can share a piece of his that is optimistic? Not generally optimistic. I mean a forward-looking optimism within the constraints of his beliefs that explains his reasons for being so.
If the listed impediments are previously predicted realities, that sucks. This appears to be a massive period for transition for what defines the American right. To tap out of it is to surrender. I wouldn't say that the average X DR user will have fair representation of their beliefs in society or its political systems anytime soon. Probably not, but, I don't know, seems like a time where Curtis Yarvin gets an NYT interview indicates a period where influence matters. A time where influence matters the most. If that demands pessimism, then raise a white flag and surrender. You may receive better terms than resisting.
That's what politics is for most people interested in politics. A soap opera. The modal antifa protestor is more interested in playing the role of revolutionary than becoming a revolutionary. Which is why they'll show up to riot, yet don't bomb too many government buildings or carry out reprisals against civilians.
Yes. You should plan your politics accordingly, aim to change minds via other avenues, or compete in the mainstream.
Power structures don't want 30 million sheeples awoken from a slumber to become politically engaged radicals. Not yours, not anyone. The SA gets defanged and sidelined for perfectly suitable reasons. Power creates a unique position to disappoint those most loyal to it.
There's an argument that the left's resurgence via progressive identity politics was Stalin's last necktie. By 2010 the left's corpse was begging to be cut open and adorned by progressives. Its credibility used in a seamless transformation. That it was made to wear skirts was silly.
It's easy to be cynical about it now, but in a past life the Tea Party was also once considered a threat to the existing power structures of American conservatives. Not as acute a threat. The disparity between it and the contemporary status quo was not nearly as wide, but co-opted and eaten all the same. The system will eat and accommodate all it can manage. That which can't be accommodated will be iced out. The DR has plenty of ideas that can't be accommodated with pluralistic realities.
An aside, anecdotally it seems like "conservative" is falling off. "The right" seems to be more popular these days.
A prominent user here once took a lot of heat for some such event. I don't remember what spurred this response, but I do remember the invective deployed against him. Paraphrased it went something like: "Your writing is nothing but gay navel gazing."
I could accept I'm in some kind of mood, too dumb, or too different to appreciate it, but that's a bit how I feel about this. Gay navel gazing dissent. If all dissident does is complain about how fake and gay the country, its people, and its systems are-- fine. But, then why should I read its essays? Can't I just have read Moldbug, some of his derivatives infrequently, absorb the gist, and call it a day? Why not?
I would say that you are too hostile to appreciate it and too entitled to people like AA appealing to you. Of course there is room for more dissident right wing writers with valuable things to say than just Moldbug. That statement tells me you simply don't like the dissident right and want it to go away. It is just not for you and it changing sufficiently will end up changing its character in a self destructive manner..
What is my solution to you not appreciating writers like Pavini? There isn't one, not everything has to appeal to everyone. You are welcome not to read him, but I don't think you have been engaging charitably with the merits.
You could make more of an effort to engage with him on his merits by putting yourself in the shoes of actual right wingers who want right wing objectives. Pavini is making actually a valid point. The mainstream right and its cheerleaders have consistently overpromised and not only under delivered but at times delivered in line with left wing objectives. Same with zionists who the republicans have always pandered towards.
AA has also made a video about reasons to be cautiously optimistic about Trump that speaks more positively about some of Trump admin's moves. Both the skepticism and appreciation of some initial steps forward are warranted.
He tries without 100% success to push for analysis from a realist perspective and also to do so while being right wing.
At the end of the day, your reaction illustrates that a certain shared moral priors and friendliness is necessary to explore issue on their merits. Else you get nowhere since you are side tracked by those who are against you even trying to oppose the establishment. I actually have seen more discussion on the merits of such issues by right wingers who are more willing to disagree with each other to an extend rather than having a completely intolerant approach.
I find the right to be a more intellectual space where issues are explored more while liberals are more about promoting conformism and trying to dismiss issues from a politically correct standpoint. So personally, on some level I engage with some dissident right wingers because I find them more intellectually stimulating and entertaining than liberals which I find much less intellectual and more interested in winning by sidelining important issues. Therefore more boring.
I must admit that unfortunately these tactics have had some success. But if one is interested in the question of how power is organized you can study liberals who are more successfully machiavellian, but you can not listen to them because a greater share of their rhetoric is about obscuring what is useful to them politically to obscure for the purposes of getting their way. Which is why it is boring since someone who wants to obscure an issue and get others to shut up about it, will not say what is interesting and true.
If it is who I think he is, Julius Bronson, now Joseph Bronski, he has got some small online success through creating a right wing substack and appealing to right wing voices. He has also not been engaging with as much defensive rhetoric which is easier to do when you don't have to deal with liberals attacking you which is done in part because they are liberals who dislike authentic right wingers. Like Kulak, leaving the motte lead to greater success and a more pleasant response. Sure, there can be elements of behavior of right wingers that are bad, more so for some people, but also liberals love to create constantly discussions about the horrible psychology of the enemy they hate that somehow such issues become much less prominent without the liberals around. There we see discussions that are more about the issues.
Of course there can be blind spots between communities that share certain ideological priors and are more friendly with each other but I do think there is something to a liberal hostility to the realist school of thought that the right is friendlier with and can more easily combine with being right wing. Not always, there is the cheerleading not realistic version to the right too. While the liberal tribe ironically exercises more so the kind of behavior of machiavelianism analyzred by realists than the right, but also to an extend have bought their own propaganda. Therefore, despite any possible ideological blindspots on the right, I don't see liberals succeed in focusing on any just mistakes, but rather are more uncharitable and motivated by a more total intolerance. And there is the great interest to find an excuse to dismiss issues by negatively describing their right wing oppositions. Which makes it hard to explore such issues at all.
This leads also to platforms dominated by the left and liberals to have a mentality that leads to more struggle sessions with each other.
Add to the more pleasant experience for right wingers when trying to engage with right wingers, and I think the end point of the extreme critique of different variants of rhetoric like "nothing but gay navel gazing", is for liberals to be deliberately excluded by right wingers who seek communities with other people on the right.
At the right (excluding those figures who aren't right wing at all), there is some ideological diversity and some hostitilities among factions as well but I find the typical liberal perspective on the right to be of a more fanatically intolerant. Akin to a religion zealot against apostates or enemy religious tribes. I guess a rare atypical liberal like Michael Tracy who doesn't really fit with mainstream liberals, can provide value on blindspots and is one of the people I like to read at times.
This sentiment of wanting to explore unpopular truths but genuinely do so, not just pretend to, is fundamental to any writer of value. And so even outside the right there are people who do so but even they step on some pieties and dogmas of mainstream liberalism. Keeping with the theme that there are shills even among the right, so beyond just right versus non right, I do think there is a value in some authentic truth tellers who share an appreciation for the act of trying to ascertain the unpopular truth. Including when criticising Trump or right wing totems. Especially when trying to explore genuine corrupt behavior by the powerful. So this can to an extend cross some ideological boundaries. Whitney Webb isn't really a strict right winger but I prefer to read her over many more openly claiming right wingers. The intercept's Lee Fang is someone else who I enjoy reading at times. Worthy writers are interested in revealing how things really are, rather than trying to cover things up and obscure reality. So even beyond the right, there is some discussion among people that cross ideological boundaries, but I guess there is still a common element. Which is people willing to criticize the regime on its various problems and corruptions.
Thanks. He linked to some other videos in the above piece as well. I prefer my dose in wordcel form, but maybe will view some one day.
I would like for it to spend less time on what it perceives as unfortunate truths that I was reading about a decade ago. So much has changed! Despite the changes many interests, nature of power, and fundamental aspects of our systems have not. There's no new mechanism to work around the Unfortunate Realities. Unless I have the wrong impression, much of what I do read from this sphere explains why you probably can't work around them. "90%" of the nominal followers, along with the leaders they look to, are committed to slop production instead of the advancement of interests.
The whole shebang begins to look more like an art collective than anything else. For Pavini, I have no idea if this is fair. I will try to read more of his links recommended in this thread below. Since you mentioned him, then Kulak for sure is a candidate for the title of artist more than advocate or organizer. He can find success in performing in other venues, because of the ecosystem that Pavini identifies as problematic. Tens of thousands of hobbitses clamoring for more doom posts, more black pills, and more performance. Everyone wants to feed from their own slop trough. That appears to be a major motivation of this lamentation.
Tangential, but if the dissenters must remain independent of the system they criticize to remain credible then must they not participate? Philosophy dudes can correct me, but this seems elementary. Of course not. This would be self-defeating for any serious attempt to advance interests if those interests include practical changes and engagement. One can retain sufficient autonomy inside or beside a system to be credible, so long as those judging him can agree. For conflict theorists, realists, ruffians, outlaws and purists in this milieu this looks like a continual sticking point.
Regarding friendliness: I don't agree this is a fair characterization. It's not the lack of friendliness that triggers me. I am not easily shocked from most writing and definitely not by the dissident's manifesto. My critique was that it is redundant, tired, or even unproductive. My interests don't restrict myself to read only nice, friendly writers. I'm friendly, and I'm boring. Being non-friendly and critical can be authentic. It's not a prerequisite to honesty though. It's a style, choice, or result of feelings, not a measure of authenticity. Of Kulak's writing that I have appreciated (I have read and appreciated plenty of it, though less in past couple years) not much of it can be called friendly. Cocytarchy was fun, although a novel sort of topic. Some of his critical, unfriendly writing appears inauthentic to me. That's the rub.
I may be wrong to pump out 6 paragraphs to cry about an essay from an author I'm not near familiar enough to pattern match. But I recognize what appear to be thousands of hobbitses learning to pattern-match aesthetics to truth or authenticity. Which creates problems that Pavini, after I've criticized for being Not Entertaining Enough, also recognizes?
I disagree that liberals are constitutionally incapable of grokking the vibes or are exceptional in how they engage with other beliefs. I agree honest dissent is necessary and good. I agree I am more likely to disregard dissent I don't like. I judge this minority viewpoint to expend too much gas spinning its tires in the mud. The pomo intersectional people might call this a privileged assessment given its place in the pyramid.
Important issues have remained important for more than a decade. Highlighting things that remain relevant is good. Sure there are unproductive elements in how the dissident right approaches power but your critique is too total and leads nowhere and instead leads us to avoid the substance of specific issues and gets us sidetracked.
After being hostile to him, are you using AA for your attack on the dissident right?
Yes, I think people who want to change a system should participate in it. There is a tension between being integrated into the system and losing your purpose, or not participating.
AA does seem to be someone who doesn't want to be an activist and to to act as more of a scholar.
Not sure about what thread you were referring. I wasn't recommending anyone. I was just saying that leaving the motte and dealing with right wingers lead to them being more successful, getting more appreciation and far less hate and their ideas were explored more commonly in good faith and in an intellectual manner. Even when people disagreed with their ideas. And it was good personally for these right wingers to filter liberals whose rhetoric tends to be anti intellectual dismissals in general, or just trying to damage their reputation.
Yes Kulak has an element of over the top exaggeration that can be criticized. But he also brings valid points.
What you say about all it being black pills, slop, is just uncharitable inaccurate exaggerated overly dismissive assertion. You use Pavini here against the disident.
To quote Pavini much of rhetoric is bulshit, bulshit, bulshit, therefore we rule. Some of your rhetoric here isn't even wrong you are just making assertions after assertions that are overly dismissive without saying much that is concrete.
Yes, much of the rhetoric promoted by people isn't the same as concrete action but might be influencing politics. Just like the existence of plenty of liberals promoting their agenda is influencing the world.
This statement:
I think this is happening.
If you contrast your criticisms with Pavini's, he criticizes specific sub groups in a manner that makes much more sense. That politicians listen to donors and powerful groups like zionists over voters and people engaged on twitter. He also posted something more optimistic after Trump doing some more promising things than expected and how there is some room for cautious optimism. Even his criticisms of slop is not just a line that is thrown there but makes sense in the context of what AA has been pushing. I don't necessarily agree with how far he pushes it though.
Nobody died and made Pavini infallible anyway. But he makes a point that makes sense and some claims that might be more questionable and your rhetoric about blackpillers, about refusal to participate in politics, slop, gas spinning its tiers in the mud, doesn't make sense. Rather you seem to be trying to overly dismiss the right here.
I am just saying that a minimum of friendly intentions is a prerequisite for intellectual honesty. There can exist some fair minded people who can be relatively on firm ground even when dealing with people they are hostile too. And this can exist even among people who aren't aligned of course but much less likely with some ideological groups. Liberals tend to be lacking this minimum when dealing with right wingers..
Honestly, you can like or dislike what you like. I am not going to try to convince you that this dude or the other dude, has X article that you will enjoy reading since what you like is going to be based on your preferences.
Pavini still made a valid point about the fact that there hasn't been a good track record for those who have been trusting the plan with the pro zionist establishment right.
What do you mean when you refer to hobbitses?
Trump might be better than other likely alternatives on the right, which could have tangible power and the online right might had some influence and so Pavini's claims might had been too strong. So the associations with aesthetics in this case might have some more validity than the usual politician that right wingers align with. Trump still would be more loyal to a base that have expectations on him, rather than merely blindly following.
Or under Trump they give some small victories but the warnings about Trump and tech oligarchs are true and they continue the path of the surveillance state through private public partnership of the state, intelligence services and private collaborating organizations like Palantir, and the big silicon valley corporations.
My critique is not meant to be total. We would need to accept that the value of the DR is limited to irascibility. I don't think this is true. My question was, in the context of this post being shared, is why should I read this type of post?
You mention Zionists twice, but they're not mentioned in the linked piece at all. When I read it, I assumed interests of Jews to be a part of, but not the totality, his model for the "system [that] has successfully neutered and tamed what was once something that alarmed them." Maybe that's obvious missing context due to not being a reader. If he considers Zionist synonymous for the elite, the Cathedral, and all else that oppresses him that's good to know.
I don't feel very hostile, but if I were then what's the problem using his impression of the ecosystem he is apart of? It is common to use or express hostility under the cover of truth telling-- truthful or not. This very piece could be described as hostile. I repeated throughout I am not that familiar and used him as a proxy. I don't think I'm asking dissidents to stop dissenting or to give up their beliefs. Although I don't agree with many of them. I am attacking a category of writing that prioritizes style over substance in an Angry Screed. Dissidents have a penchant for it though not a monopoly. Dissidents write plenty of interesting stuff.
Hostility is a good word to attach to my intolerance. Hostility has been overused and lost its affect. Hostility is normal. We should expect hostility to come naturally to the disaffected dissident. It can used in be a true reflection, a contrived narrative, or a rote, slop-producing process. Who is to say which is which? De gustibus.
Overly nice, pleasant dissident. There's an unfilled niche.
We may differ on what 'friendly intentions' means and to what degree people engage honestly. In support of your case, I think something like the recent NYT interview with Yarvin is an example. Lomez over Nathan Robinson, and so on. I don't think the DR, in its popular form represented by frogmen and anime gurus, is without sin when it comes to intellectual honesty.
I have severe suspicion of the suggestion that one can more honestly engage with ideas by bowing out of spaces with resistance. More easily and more lucrative, yes. Better to find comfort of like-minded individuals and build on your beliefs without those silly distractions? This sounds preposterous to me with a reference to The Motte. Sharing a space with like-minded people can be easier for development of consensus, making friends, and leisure. It can easily be worse for honestly engaging with ideas, especially those you don't share. I highly recommend everyone adopts some form of this suspicion lest they be misled.
Practically speaking if one wants to get paid to write they need to limit how much and where they write for free. I hope everyone on the right does not need to leave The Motte to engage honestly with their ideas or build upon them.
My understanding of this analogy: elves are elites of the regime, and hobbits are used as a general stand-in for people, proles, non-sentient useful idiots, populist agents of change, or useless hedonists. Whatever else you need people to be in a sentence. I remembered Dark elves as some counter-elite. The analogy can describe a populist surge, or it can describe middling, politically engaged plebs that need to get out of the way so the Real Men can do work.
I like it. De gustibus.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link