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 -
The mirror image of this article, alleging insane beliefs by key liberal figure, could easily be written by a social conservative. I am not one, but it's quite easy for me to imagine a version of this which swaps out Zelensky's approval rating for e.g. beliefs on trans people, which many social conservatives would regard as "incapable of separating truth [that men are men and women are women] from fiction". I don't, so I will let someone else write the actual mirror image article if they want to. Regardless, at a minimum I think most would agree that regardless of right or wrong, beliefs about trans people are more politically profound and important than incorrectly claiming low approval ratings for a specific figure. This is the entire problem with Hanania's current routine. From the perspective of conservatism, there's plenty of low human capital liberalism, they just have the added benefit of sometimes getting to smuggle it through academia.
Haniana has this schtick that liberals misguided but conservatives are stupid. Hence this article while ignoring or obfuscating the argument to the contrary. I think his thesis is just wrong.
Yup.
He's got a microniche where he sides with conservatives/righties 95% of the time, but makes a huge deal out of the points on which he disagrees, and implies or outright says that they only disagree with him because they're hopelessly stupid and misguided, and thus he is appalled by 'his own side's' ignorance that he absolute must spend most of his time calling them out.
Lets him get more attention by pissing off the people he nominally sides with, but he also deflects or ignores any direct criticism.
I talked about it a bit:
If anything, he's taking advantage of the fact that the majority of any ideology's adherents are pretty stupid, so its trivial to nutpick your way to prominence.. Well not 'prominence' but something.
This old post of his that claims Walz is clearly better liked and more likeable than Vance looks ESPECIALLY misguided, in retrospect.
Basically, he does micro-motte-and-bailey so he is never really caught in an out-and-out false or fallacious position.
If you are only seeing white identity politics, then that is what you are looking for.
The right wing personalities worth following are rarely universal, because most people aren't infinite polyglots. And most issues aren't appropriate for all styles of people. Matt Walsh is basically a comedian. He is best followed when discussing DEI and Transgender issues, because the appropriate level of seriousness the left wing positions on those topics deserve is mockery and scorn. Matt Walsh barely talks about climate change (except to mock someone like Greta Thunburg) because its not an appropriate issue for his style, and he luckily knows it.
Someone like Bjorn Lundberg is more appropriate for talking about climate change because, while the left wing talking points around the issue are also absurd, it is a serious issue where much more nuance is actually appropriate. If you are looking for a one size fits all solution to understanding the right, you probably will not find one that satisfies you. But if you think there is one on the left I would like to know who you think that is. I would expect I would find several positions that quickly fall apart. I mean, just look at the pathetic performance of Sam Seder on that "stacked" show (I think that is the name) that is now going viral.
More options
Context Copy link
The only pundits who aren’t identitarians are grey tribers who are relatively obscure. People are tribalistic like that, I dont know what to tell you. When your ethnic group is being assaulted on all sides and you’re rapidly becoming a minority in your own country, you tend to get a little defensive.
More options
Context Copy link
Find the ones who are actually smart an intellectually honest.
Jeremy Kaufmann, Travis Corcoran, and maybe Robin Hanson if you're able to stomach some weird hypotheticals.
You do have to look outside the mainstream but you don't have to accept intentional flamebaiting.
I would say Robin Hanson is on Mars rather than being on the right. The only reason he reads as right-wing is that the left have put effort into hating on him after he turned out to be a secret HBD-believer, whereas the right ignore him.
Which makes him all the better to follow if you're trying to get a truly "different" or "outsider" perspective on things, honestly.
Personally I think Hanson is fundamentally more grounded than virtually anyone, he is probably more heavily tied into base reality and accepts the rules thereof more than almost all other humans.
Its just his tendency to try to extrapolate those rules into the future where he gets quite weird.
Hanson says a lot of things about creative uses of markets which make me want to facepalm because based on my own professional experience he clearly doesn't understand how financial markets work, so I assume Gell-Mann amnesia applies when he writes about technical topics I don't understand. But even if he is mostly wrong, he certainly never fails to be interesting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Trump promised one thing, the bill contains something different than what was promised.
Jeremy is literally stating that even Trump isn't interested in fulfilling his initial promises.
Which is to say that Massie is more intellectually honest than Trump (shocker!) and that pointing this out itself requires intellectual honesty.
More options
Context Copy link
Looked up the first person, Jeremy Kaufmann. More recent xeets:
Today I will be doing my duty to help save the word libertarian
What actually changes for an average Ukrainian whether they're ruled by Putin or Zelenskyy? Superficially, Russia appears to have a stronger economy. What gets worse for a Ukrainian citizen if Putin wins?
Regardless what you think about Ukraine war, this perfect representation of Greedy American stereotype is not the best way to win hearts and minds for cause of libertarianism.
Most generous thing to say is that Mr. Kaufmann should concentrate on New Hampshire gasoline tax and leave world politics to others.
Just checking again, and Mr Kaufmann declares himself "Zionist" and "Christian nationalist" simultaneously.
It is unclear what he means by "Christian nation".
Nation that is overwhelmingly Christian? Many such cases worldwide. Excluding Vatican and tiny island countries, most significant is probably 98% Christian Romania.
Nation where Christianity is established by law and non-Christians are persecuted? No idea if there is such place today, and no idea either how will creating such place make the world more free.
More options
Context Copy link
One tweet down the thread:
You interpreted the question as a gotcha or something, when he's literally being perfectly up front about why he asked it and is accepting answers in good faith.
I think this proves the point that he's not mindkilled.
I interpret the question as deliberate shitposting and trolling in bad faith to rev up outrage and gain more clicks, as does nearly everyone replying to it.
Just like whole "New Hampshire Libertarian Party".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I dunno, I guess read it again? I can't even tell from your comment what it is you think Kaufmann is saying in his tweet. As if we don't even share the same comprehension of that string of English words.
Like what it is that you're taking away from his tweet that is evidently blaring "intellectually dishonest" to you, somehow? Also he's criticizing Republicans—don't you at least like that?
Edit: I got got. :/
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not following any online political personalities is an option. I don’t know of any on either the left or right that aren’t embarrassing for their perspective.
More options
Context Copy link
When the choice is between guys pretending not to be white identitarian and guys pretending not to be zionist my wish is that we could all come together, stop pretending and just be ourselves.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The actual mirror image article is the comedy movie ‘What is a Woman?’.
This is insulting to What is a Woman. The depiction of trans advocates in that movie is entirely honest and without hyperbole.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link