site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   34788 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022

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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is the Moldbug fallacy A descends from B, therefore A is B, you don't like A therefore you must also not like B. Ideas are all interconnected if you applied this principle rigorously you could refute western thought all the way back to aristotle, the trick is picking an arbitrary place to stop.

Wokism does descend from marxism but in a sense it also represents disillusionment with it, with the failure of class consciousness to materialize in the west and with the fall of the URSS simultaneously. Marxism says little about race and gender and is very preoccupied with economic class; wokeism is basically the opposite, to the point where you can make a corporate friendly version of it that disregards class entirely. Marxism is, in principle, materialist, wokeism is not.

This is the Moldbug fallacy A descends from B, therefore A is B, you don't like A therefore you must also not like B.

For this argument to be valid, the salient features of A do not actually carry over to B. You argue this:

Wokism does descend from marxism but in a sense it also represents disillusionment with it, with the failure of class consciousness to materialize in the west and with the fall of the URSS simultaneously.

...But this argument is based on a particular interpretation of which portions of Marxism are salient. Others disagree with that assessment, and dismissing their arguments out of hand is not a productive strategy for good-faith discussion.

Both Marxism and Wokeism are fundamentally revolutionary, and in a very similar way. The arguments they deploy have very similar shapes, make similar mistakes, are persuasive for similar reasons, appeal to similar groups, and result in similar failure modes and, it seems likely, final outcomes. The aim of both is to secure radical social change by fomenting class conflict. Specifics of the classes and their features and grievances do not seem terribly relevant to the question of how and why the ideologies operate.

To some extent, what we're talking about here is the difference between Marxism internally and externally. For a doctrinaire Marxist of some particular strain, I've no doubt that Wokeism is absolutely heretical bullshit. But I am not a Doctrinaire Marxist, and I in fact do not see how the doctrine is terribly relevant or important in any way to anything I care about, any more than an American Indian should care about the doctrinal disputes between Lutherans or Anglicans in the 1600s. With regards to how Marxism impacts me, there is no significant difference between the old version and the new version: they appeal to the same people, they're pushed by the same people, they attack the same important social structures in the same ways, and the arguments against them are more or less isomorphic. Pretending otherwise mainly seems to be an attempt to maintain the suppression of social antibodies to a monstrous ideology that should be exactly as taboo as literal swastika-and-sieg-heil naziism.

With regards to how Marxism impacts me, there is no significant difference between the old version and the new version: they appeal to the same people, they're pushed by the same people, they attack the same important social structures in the same ways, and the arguments against them are more or less isomorphic.

This is actually not true, but you'd barely know it because the actual Marxists are so weak and have had their theory so exploded and bypassed by time that it just doesn't make sense anymore. The Trotskyist 4th International was actually one of the first places to host major historians pushing back against NHJ's 1619 Project, and some of the most prominent contemporary Marxist economists like Adolph Reed have been vocal critics of the current cultural turn in left activism.

Both Marxism and Wokeism are fundamentally revolutionary, and in a very similar way. The arguments they deploy have very similar shapes, make similar mistakes, are persuasive for similar reasons, appeal to similar groups, and result in similar failure modes and, it seems likely, final outcomes. The aim of both is to secure radical social change by fomenting class conflict. Specifics of the classes and their features and grievances do not seem terribly relevant to the question of how and why the ideologies operate.

Not similar at all. Aim of Marxism is indeed radical social change, while aim of wokeism is preserving society as it is, only with more rainbow flags and transgender toilets.

When Marxists get their way, billionaires are expropriated. When wokeists get their way, billionaires are richer and more secure than ever before.

any more than an American Indian should care about the doctrinal disputes between Lutherans or Anglicans in the 1600s.

Actually existing Indians well understood differences between European colonialists and played them for their advantage as they could.

Your attitude is more like of the most hardcore and dumbest Salafist Muslims of today:

"Christianity and Hinduism? It is all idolatry, the same pagan filth."

I do not get why boomer conservatives insist on pushing "Marxist" straightjacket on everything, why they insist calling "Marxist" people who know nothing about Marx and never claimed to be Marxist.

If you asked woke activists about Marx, 90% would answer "What is Marx?" and 10% would say "Fuck this white racist colonizer".

Is it their childhood programming that taught them that Marxism is the worst thing in the world, and all bad things must be Marxist?

You do not have to be "doctrinaire Marxist" to understand it - here is what one lifelong hardcore Christian fundamentalist anti communist fighter Gary Kilgore North has to say.

Cultural Marxism Is an Oxymoron

Ignore Anyone Who Says Marxism Is a Threat

But this argument is based on a particular interpretation of which portions of Marxism are salient (...) Specifics of the classes and their features and grievances do not seem terribly relevant to the question of how and why the ideologies operate.

IMO the contention that the salient portion of Marxism is not economic class is a pretty contorted view of how marxism has been generally interpreted in the past 150 years.

they appeal to the same people, they're pushed by the same people,

They don't, communism appealed very much to the working class. You may not see this because communism was basically illegal in the US, but where it did exist the parties were staffed by working class people and that's where they received votes. Wokism main centers of power are journalism and HR.

they attack the same important social structures in the same ways,

What would that be? I don't know where you are going with this, but often people say "the family" so I'll pre-empt that. All strong ideologies "attack the family" to some degree:

  • in the 10 commandments, allegiance to the family comes after allegiance to God and to the Church

  • fascism followed suit, proclaiming allegiance to "God, country and the family" (Dio, patria, famiglia) in that order

  • Jesus says "For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother" as well as many others to the same effect

  • Scientology practices disconnection from anyone who is declared SP, including family members if necessary

  • Isolation from family members is a common cult technique

and the arguments against them are more or less isomorphic

Maybe for you.

I agree with your point but I think 'conservatives' and the like are correct in playing this association game for a different reason. In short it would be bio-leninism + high heritability of certain political ideas.

The fact that a person is a devout marxist isn't a coincidence most of the time. Depending on what type of marxist they are and why boils down to biology. They have brain chemistry that makes them like X more than Y. And 'conservatives', for a lack of a better term, like Y over X. So it's not about the academic intellectual tradition being a poisoned well, it's that the people who can stand to drink from it are different from you in ways so drastic that you can't trust anything they have to say. Everything that extends from their thought process, by dint of their divergence from you, is therefor most likely toxic to you and the things you care about.

The fact they were 'marxist' or something else is just a signal or a uniform of sorts that helps you mark them as being neurologically different from you.

You could also try to fit Jonathan Haidt's work, specifically 'The Righteous Mind', into this.

Well said. This, above, is how DiAngelo came up with the term “white fragility”. She, being seemingly blind to economic class, could genuinely not understand why American workers would dislike their bosses requiring them to attend meetings where they were psychoanalyzed in front of their coworkers, with the penalty for not submitting themselves to her quackery being running afoul of HR in a country where affordable health insurance in bundled with employment.

Robin DiAngelo didn't come up with anything per se. She just published and popularized a very salient critique against white liberal/progressive/leftist inaction in the face of the enormous gaps between blacks and whites in the US. A critique that had been floating about in academia for a while. (It should come as no surprise that she cites Noel Ignatiev & friends a lot.)

Most people don't understand what the term "white fragility" means and what it's useful for. White Fragility is not just about skin color. It's about your stated beliefs + your skin color. To give an example, if you are unapologetically racist and white you are not fragile. But if you are white and believe yourself not to be racist? Well... Why aren't you helping the blacks more? From that point onward every word that exits your mouth is white fragility in action. Why do you think blacks are poorer? Have worse educational outcomes? Have worse jobs? Everything you say here that isn't explicitly racist is either white fragility or an invitation for DiAngelo to ask you why you aren't doing more to help. And every answer you give to that question that isn't 'Yes Mam' followed by extensive plans for action is white fragility in action.

Robin DiAngelo walks into institutions filled to the brim with white self-described anti-racists and tears them a new one for not actually being anti-racist. And she is right. A person who says they care about racism and all the gaps between blacks and whites but doesn't do anything about it is either a hypocrite or a liar. Why shouldn't a group full of self-described anti-racists be called out on their lack of action? Black people are literally dying whilst you fret over what is for lunch.

Robin DiAngelo isn't breaking any rules here. Why shouldn't people who say they care about matters of race and the oppression be forced into action? Why should the plight of one overprivileged fragile white person who loses their job and healthcare matter more than the plight of millions of black people? Why should their personal worries be allowed to act as a bulwark against real anti-racist action? Why should the free market system that ties jobs with healthcare be used as a rhetorical moral shield for white people when it has been used as a sword against black people for centuries?

Robin DiAnglo talks about why she named her book what she did because she needed a term and an explanation for why white people were getting upset when exposed to her nonsense. And she couldn’t grok that people go to work to pay their rent/mortgage and not to publicly interrogate their subconscious as it is portrayed to them by $6,000/hour grifter consultants. I’m 💯 sure the managerial/executive class at many companies does prattle on in an empty manner about EDI, but this loops right back around to the underlying class conflict EDI deprioritizes.

The Blocked and Reported pedants did an interview with someone who went through one of DiAngelo’s company’s sessions. She was a graphic designer who, for her job, made a poster for the Odyssey. It was a minimalist poster that had a ship on a white background with the familiar blue-and-while Meander pattern you find on paper coffee cups in 80s movies. DiAngelo’s consultants told her coworkers the ship was a subconscious manifestation of colonialism and the Meander was a subconscious manifestation of Nazi swastikas.

Normally, going around telling someone’s coworkers they’re a secret Nazi will land you in HR. But you’re supposed to thank an EDI consultant and not be upset if they do it?

All you’ve offered are the espoused goals of EDI consultants. But you exempt mention of their methods, which is why DiAngelo had to come up with an explanation about why she was reducing people to tears that eased her conscience while the consulting checks kept cashing. And it’s definitely a class issue when management subjects workers to this stuff as a PR move.

Nothing you say changes the fact that self-described anti-racists are sitting on their asses in positions of power doing nothing to help black people who have been suffering for centuries. Sorry but no one should care about the crocodile tears of white overprivileged liars and hypocrites when they are finally confronted with the reality of their being.

All you are doing is shifting the conversation away from the plight of blacks and instead focusing on the fact a privileged white person doesn't like being called what they are. If you don't believe black suffering matters stop pretending and get out of the way of progress. The free market, that white people love when it benefits them and helps them exploit others, is now finally, in the tiniest way possible, affecting the most privileged people on earth slightly negatively by comparison. Forgive me for not caring when this 'inconvenience' is contrasted with literal slavery.

I don’t care one way or the other what you do or don’t care about. But you’ll need to define “the most privileged people on Earth” more broadly than the the capital-owning class to make your point, which proves mine.

Also, what evidence do you have that even a simple majority of people subjected to bizarre EDI sessions are “self-described anti-racists”? Tons of not-online normies who go to work for a paycheck work for companies who do, on the other hand, have a C-suite willing to hire “self-described anti-racists” as consultants and officers to provide a bit of a prophylactic against potential discrimination lawsuits.

I don’t care one way or the other what you do or don’t care about.

I care about racism and the harm that it causes. Don't you? Are you a racist?

But you’ll need to define “the most privileged people on Earth” more broadly than the the capital-owning class to make your point, which proves mine.

Being a white office worker makes you top 1% in the world when it comes to nigh every metric possible. If you think you are making a point by recognizing this fact then you will have to elucidate me.

Also, what evidence do you have that even a simple majority of people subjected to bizarre EDI sessions are “self-described anti-racists”?

You have to follow the context of the conversation if this is going to work, you can't just go comment by comment.

Most people don't understand what the term "white fragility" means and what it's useful for. White Fragility is not just about skin color. It's about your stated beliefs + your skin color. To give an example, if you are unapologetically racist and white you are not fragile. But if you are white and believe yourself not to be racist? Well... Why aren't you helping the blacks more?

Either the people are anti-racist and not doing a good enough job and should be scolded, or they are racist since they don't want to do anything real to help fight against racism.

Either the people are anti-racist and not doing a good enough job and should be scolded, or they are racist since they don't want to do anything real to help fight against racism.

Or anti-racism offers a false binary, and people that take it seriously like Ibrahim X. Kendi end up sincerely advocating for an unelected panel of EDI government officials to be placed above the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government in the pages of the Atlantic, effectively ending electoral politics if elections don’t redress racism is coherent with anti-racism’s assertion that no person/organization/structure/action/etc. can be neutral.

The binary isn't false. Either blacks are suffering more than whites, or they are not. It's not up to you as a white person to dictate the safest possible way for equality to come about anymore. Whites have had decades to put their preferred methods into action and none of them have worked. The gaps between blacks and whites are the same.

Sorry, but you don't get to sacrifice more black bodies for your white comfort anymore. The suffering and oppressed have no reason or moral obligation to value the continuation of the system that hurts and oppresses them and their children. If we can't achieve racial harmony within the white structures of power, then they will have to be abolished just like black and brown bodies had to abolish the white structure of slavery.

Why shouldn't a group full of self-described anti-racists be called out on their lack of action?

Because people aren't being hypocrites for fun; they're being hypocrites because they're forced into it. Attacking hypocrites under these circumstances is just adding more force.

Forced at what stage?

If they are forced into identifying as anti-racist then they are just racist cowards. Why shouldn't we apply more force to racist cowards?

In any case it seems you are valuing the comfort of white inaction above the suffering, oppression and death of black victims.

If they are forced into identifying as anti-racist then they are just racist cowards.

That's like saying that if you have to be forced to obey the Patriot Act, you're a non-patriotic coward.

The demands that you have to follow in order to be an "anti-racist" and keep your job have little to do with actually being anti-racist.

The demands that you have to follow in order to be an "anti-racist" and keep your job have little to do with actually being anti-racist.

According to privileged white people who have overseen decades of oppression over blacks. Robin DiAngelo is there to remind you that your white privilege does not hold more value than black suffering just because you are currently benefiting from it.

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