site banner
PaperclipPerfector  26d ago (text post)   36916 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 27, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Counterpoint: Trump acheived all this because he followed the Moldbug plan of having a tech CEO bring in a bunch of 20-year-olds to run the executive branch like a startup. Curtis Yarvin is becoming whitepilled as we speak.

This feels like those people who think Yudkowsky is discredited because recursive self-improvement looks a bit different than what he imagined in 2007 or whatever. No one else was even thinking that deeply about AI in 2007.

This feels like those people who think Yudkowsky is discredited because recursive self-improvement looks a bit different than what he imagined in 2007 or whatever. No one else was even thinking that deeply about AI in 2007.

I will admit to not paying Yudkowsky much attention but recursive self-improvement is an extremely old trope, you don't get any points for talking about that in 2007. Perhaps you were thinking of something specific he expanded on that wasn't mapped out by sci-fi authors before he was born?

He only got to do that because more people pressed Trump button. That's the central point, if more people had pressed Harris button, Trump wouldn't get to hire or appoint anybody. Yarvin is as turgid and obnoxious to read as usual, but "moral energy" is conveniently unquantifiable.

RWers have spent the past several years LARPing like they were Soviet dissidents living under a regime of red terror when it turned out they actually lived in a liberal democracy that functioned as advertised the whole time.

He only got to do that because more people pressed Trump button. That's the central point, if more people had pressed Harris button, Trump wouldn't get to hire or appoint anybody. Yarvin is as turgid and obnoxious to read as usual, but "moral energy" is conveniently unquantifiable.

Yeah, but the American people pressing the button for "right-wing strong man" (as opposed to generic Republican who fakes being CEO of America) is exactly what Yarvin proposed as his solution 15 years ago:

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2010/03/true-election-practical-option-for-real/

RWers have spent the past several years LARPing like they were Soviet dissidents living under a regime of red terror when it turned out they actually lived in a liberal democracy that functioned as advertised the whole time.

I agree with this in sentiment. Your main point is substantively correct.

Still, there are various facts that we're learning about how the government operated that suggest on that on the sliding scale between "red terror" and "following the rules", they were at least a smidgen over the line.

For example, sure, if you press one button or another (modulo Congress, which I'm still convinced ought to step up to their role they've seemingly willingly abdicated, but that's another thread) then the government changes priorities and spend money on different things. That's well and good, but it seems like we've been granting millions in tax dollars to left-leaning groups to do left-leaning politics is not quite inside the rules. The button-pressing-winner is emphatically not supposed to be allowed to spend government dollars to convince people to press his button again in 4 years.

Does that mean it's the Soviet gulag? Absolutely not, but nuance is good here and despite the histrionics of the reactionary right, they had some nugget of truth in there.

The button-pressing-winner is emphatically not supposed to be allowed to spend government dollars to convince people to press his button again in 4 years.

I agree with, but even in countries which Americans considered at least adjacent to Liberty, and not dictatorships, the people in power can explicitly use the fact that they in power and thus have access to the fiscus, to persuade the masses of the correctness of their political views.

RWers have spent the past several years LARPing like they were Soviet dissidents living under a regime of red terror when it turned out they actually lived in a liberal democracy that functioned as advertised the whole time.

Do liberal democracies advertise that they'll prosecute whistleblowers reporting on the law being broken by institutions, unless the right candidate is elected? Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought they explicitly advertise the opposite.

Do they advertise that they'll attempt to control people's speech, unless it happens to be in line with who's in power? I was also under the impression that the ad pinky-swore liberal democracy will never do that.

No, but they advertise that if the government is being mean to you, you can go in the booth and press the button next to the name of the guy who says he'll make the government stop being mean to you, and make it be mean to the other guys instead, and if more people press that button then press the other button, the government will stop being mean to you. This is what just happened.

and press the button next to the name of the guy who says he'll make the government stop being mean to you, and make it be mean to the other guys instead

Can you link me to that advertisement? Because I'm pretty sure that they very emphatically don't advertise that, that they actually advertise the opposite, and that this is one of the defining differences between liberal democracies and other systems.

If this is what Mrs. Collins told you, she may be more based than you're giving her credit.

That liberal democracies never employ repression against political opponents, or that their doing so immediately falsifies the premises of liberal democracy? I don't think this is really held by anyone. Certainly I think very few defenders of liberal democracy would argue that, though they may argue that liberal democracies tend to pursue political repression less than countries which aren't liberal democracies, or do so less harshly, both of which I believe are true.

Granted that's my fault for glibly talking about "advertisement" as if there's a CEO of liberal democracy. A more important promise of liberal democracy is that if you don't like the current government, including if you think the current government is ineffective, corrupt, or unfair, you can vote it out, and the government you vote in its place will pursue different policies.

I think "being mean to your political opponents" isn't necessarily repression.

Repealing the EV tax credit is mean to EV manufacturers, but it's absolutely not repression. It's a policy that Congress really could decide either way based on their priorities.

Of course, there is a line where "being mean" crosses over into repression. But there is plenty of space on this side of the line where it's just "we don't support that as a priority". For another example, we don't want to log/drill this federal land (mean to the loggers/drillers) or we do (mean to the conservationists that want to keep it intact). Neither are repression.

That liberal democracies never employ repression against political opponents, or that their doing so immediately falsifies the premises of liberal democracy?

More like "something something rule of law...", and "mumble mumble not a tyranny of the majority". Anyway, if some exceptions are allowed without it disproving the broader point, I don't see why we should dismiss Yarvin wholesale.

though they may argue that liberal democracies tend to pursue political repression less than countries which aren't liberal democracies, or do so less harshly, both of which I believe are true

I have never heard a liberal democracy enjoyer say "we totally do political repression, we're just more subtle about it". If this is what you believe, than you may be more based than you think.

A more important promise of liberal democracy is that if you don't like the current government, including if you think the current government is ineffective, corrupt, or unfair, you can vote it out, and the government you vote in its place will pursue different policies.

That's not a promise of liberal democracy specifically, all democracies promise that, including illiberal ones (which I am told are a very very bad thing).

Anyway, if some exceptions are allowed without it disproving the broader point, I don't see why we should dismiss Yarvin wholesale.

It doesn't entirely disprove his whole theory, even though I do think he's wrong. It is a data point against it. He himself admits he's surprised. I threw a jab at Yarvin, but I mostly have in mind actual, concrete predictions that They were so powerful and so well-entrenched, and democracy is such a fraud, that Trump specifically would not be allowed to win.

I have never heard a liberal democracy enjoyer say "we totally do political repression, we're just more subtle about it".

All political systems engage in repression to some degree. But differences of degree are important. Less is better. The repression experienced by the American right over the past several years has been quite mild compared to even the mildest of twentieth century dictatorships, which is why terminology like "the Regime" (obviously chosen to imply an equivalency between liberal democracies and the various states most people imagine when they hear the word "regime," Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, and others) is very silly. I expect Trump will exercise some degree of repression against the left over the next four years as he's promised to do, though it won't be particularly severe by historical standards either. And if the GOP loses in 2028 (or even loses badly in the midterms), it will stop.

That's not a promise of liberal democracy specifically, all democracies promise that, including illiberal ones

I don't consider "illiberal democracy" to be a very useful term. All states have some democratic features. Even the Soviet Union in the 1930s did. All states have some non-democratic features. It's also a matter of degrees, and there are edge cases, but that doesn't mean the distinction between non-democracy and democracy is nonexistent, just like there's a distinction between purple and blue despite the seamless blend.

It doesn't entirely disprove his whole theory, even though I do think he's wrong. It is a data point against it. He himself admits he's surprised. I threw a jab at Yarvin, but I mostly have in mind actual, concrete predictions that They were so powerful and so well-entrenched, and democracy is such a fraud, that Trump specifically would not be allowed to win.

Sure, and it's quite fine for you to have that position, and the topic is a very interesting one for a conversation, but your actual position is a lot less bombastic than you started off. Much like this is a data point against Yarvin, there are numerous data points against the "advertised" version of liberal democracy. It's not so obvious to me that Yarvin's theory comes out worse than the naive liberal democrat's, even if Yarvin ended up surprised. Back when I was a liberal I was very surprised by the sudden shedding of liberal principles by supposed liberals, but this doesn't seem to phase you, so why should Yarvinists be phased by Yarvin's surprise?

All political systems engage in repression to some degree. But differences of degree are important. Less is better.

Sure. But if you advertise a certain maximum level of oppression, and you cross it, you cannot than tell me that everything works as advertised. Governments interfering with speech is a particularly important line, given how important the transmission of information is to how people vote. "Other guys are doing it worse" is no excuse for crossing it, and it's actually more egregious to do it when you've promised not to, than to do it more when you haven't made such promises.

Now, stuff slipping through the cracks is a normal part of the real world, and I'm not saying this has to be perfect, but if there's a known and significant case of a line being crossed, that case needs to be punished, otherwise there is no reason to believe the promises were anything other than a lie.

I don't consider "illiberal democracy" to be a very useful term.

I do. Liberalism has certain core principles, and deliberately departing from one or more of them makes you illiberal. I don't even think it's a bad thing, I'm illiberal myself. I also believe it's possible to depart from these principles while being in favor of a democratic system of government.

More comments

Perhaps, as they say, real liberal democracy has never been attempted.

I have never heard a liberal democracy enjoyer say "we totally do political repression

Have you heard anyone in charge of a modern-day country say that? Political repression is what the others are doing; you are just taking appropriate measures against the extraordinary threats the nation is facing.

Have you heard anyone in charge of a modern-day country say that?

Yes, and from my experience they tend to deny that they're repressing anyone, even as they are outline their plans of political repression, which is my point.

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