site banner
PaperclipPerfector  20d ago (text post)   35148 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 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.

Liberalism is just the sum of its parts. One such part is freedom of speech. Censoring HBD is illiberal, and any ‘time bomb’ that results from censoring HBD should be laid at illiberalism’s feet. Illiberalism is the easy choice that never works out.

Sure, then let's end this charade and declare Liberalism dead already, because it seems we have about three principled liberals in the world, seven zillion illiberals wearing liberalism for a skin-suit.

No matter how unpopular it gets – and it was never that popular to begin with– liberalism will remain the best solution to organize human society, so I don’t know what it means for it to be ‘declared dead’. Critiques of liberalism on this forum are rarely specific and grounded in alternatives. Rather liberalism is pitted against an impossibly high standard. Often the failures of its enemies are assigned to it (HBD censorship).

liberalism will remain the best solution to organize human society

How do you know that, if we don't currently have it?

so I don’t know what it means for it to be ‘declared dead’

It means we're not currently living under a liberal regime, and there's maybe a handful of liberals alive on Earth.

Critiques of liberalism on this forum are rarely specific and grounded in alternatives.

I disagree. Most criticism here are very specific, I can grant there's something to be said about putting forward alternatives, but if you're going to to say that the examples of it's failures were falsely attributed to it, you're essentially saying "true liberalism has never been tried", and therefore are just as empty-handed.

Rather liberalism is pitted against an impossibly high standard.

I don't see where anyone has done this.

We're not living in a perfectly liberal regime, but our regime is about as close to liberalism as humanity has ever gotten so far. I can see that our semi-liberal regime is better than any illiberal regime when it comes to most things that I value. Which, of course, does not mean that making the regime even more liberal would necessarily make things even better! It might not. But it does show that at least semi-liberalism is, to me, better than the known alternatives.

We're not living in a perfectly liberal regime, but our regime is about as close to liberalism as humanity has ever gotten so far.

Okay, but then he can't tell me that what the regime did is actually the fault of anti-liberals, he has to pick one!

Sure he can. A semi-liberal regime, by definition, has some illiberal elements. Why can't one blame those elements for illiberal things that the regime does?

Because the dynamics of our system aren't ones where some people are deliberately pushing for liberalism against the pressures of dedicated anti-liberals. When Olaf Scholz says "we have free speech, just not for the far-right", or when the European powers are schemeing to remove anonymity from the Internet, they're not an anti-liberal faction of the elites, they are the same people who made regime be about as close to liberalism as humanity has ever gotten so far.

they are the same people who made regime be about as close to liberalism as humanity has ever gotten so far

No, they’re those people’s children. Not the same thing; sometimes wise or well-meaning parents end up raising children who are neither.

More comments

It means we're not currently living under a liberal regime, and there's maybe a handful of liberals alive on Earth.

See that’s what I’m talking about impossibly high standards, it’s not one or zero, you can be more or less liberal. And OP thinks liberalism failed because... people voted for less centrist candidates?

Freedom of speech is a liberal policy. You can't just point to a relative lack of freedom of speech to do the 'liberalism fails yet again!' schtick.

Specifically, liberals believe in a psychic unity of man, that all human beings are tabula rasas upon which magic dirt renders them their behaviour and social-economic functioning. This, paired with the idea that whites are inherently guilty and owe a debt to BIPOC that can never, ever be repaid, borders are therefore deemed hindrances and oppressive.

This is also not liberalism.

See that’s what I’m talking about impossibly high standards, it’s not one or zero

But that's the standard you brought up. If it's not none or zero, than you can be a liberal while censoring people, and you can't automatically attribute censorship to the enemies of liberalism.

This is also not liberalism.

It's extremely reductive, but it's basically Rousseau? Has he been cast out of the Liberal canon?

It's extremely reductive, but it's basically Rousseau? Has he been cast out of the Liberal canon?

My understanding is that he was never in Liberal canon. He had a huge distrust of private property, individual choice, and markets. All things that are actual cornerstones of Liberalism.

If it's not none or zero, than you can be a liberal while censoring people, and you can't automatically attribute censorship to the enemies of liberalism.

Yes I can. A partly liberal regime implementing an illiberal policy that fails is a failure of illiberalism. If a liberal policy failed, that would be a failure of liberalism.

Like many liberals, I think rousseau is incorrect. I don’t call myself liberal because I worship Rousseau’s word, but because it’s a useful category that encompasses a range of policy positions I support, freedom of speech, equality before the law, democracy, private property, individual rights and freedom. The historical roots and even the word itself I don’t find important. If the criticism is limited to rousseau’s thought, go ahead, he’s nothing to me. But if you want to criticize a standard liberal position, you'd have to confront freedom of speech, equality before the law etc, directly.

Yes I can. A partly liberal regime implementing an illiberal policy that fails is a failure of illiberalism. If a liberal policy failed, that would be a failure of liberalism.

Liberals implementing an illiberal policy in the name of liberalism, is a failure of liberalism. Yours is the exact same logic behind "real communism has never been tried". It's cool that what you're actually arguing is a classless society, but if your system keeps ending up as an authoritarian oligarchy or dictatorship, that's on you. Same with liberalism - it would be one thing if liberals fought for freedom of speech and lost, then you could claim that the failure belongs to illiberals, but if it's liberals fighting against freedom of speech, it's on you.

Like many liberals, I think rousseau is incorrect.

Cool, but I can't see how you can call his ideas "not liberalism".

But if you want to criticize a standard liberal position, you'd have to confront freedom of speech, equality before the law etc, directly.

I like to focus on the ideas of collective identity, collective rights, the secular state, and neutral institutions. Pretty sure those are also at the core of the standard liberal position.

Yours is the exact same logic behind "real communism has never been tried".

But liberalism has been tried and it's been terrific. I'll defend its record gladly, unlike them.

You're not judging things fairly, you're stacking the deck against liberalism. If a liberal policy fails anywhere, you reckon it's a failure of liberalism. However, if a somewhat liberal regime implements an illiberal policy and it fails, it's still a failure of liberalism. If it succeeds, failure of liberalism again.

I like to focus on the ideas of collective identity, collective rights, the secular state, and neutral institutions. Pretty sure those are also at the core of the standard liberal position.

"collective identity, collective rights" seem opposed to individual rights, which is core.

More comments

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