site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   45549 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 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.

106
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think your framing as Napoleon as "absolutist" is wildly incorrect. Napoleon is the central figure of liberalism's history. He more than anyone else is why liberalism won out. France unburdened by the extractive institutions of feudalism was able to fight the whole of Europe and (nearly) win. Massive armies of patriotic men led by officers who gained their positions by merit, backed by an economy not hamstrung by the Church, nobility, and state monopolies forced the rest of Europe's monarchies to make popular reforms, or perish. Even when Napoleon was ultimately defeated he had made 1848 inevitable.

Logically, shouldn't we expect powerful absolutist/totalitarian states to dominate, ceteris paribus?

Market economies tend to very badly outcompete state-directed ones. And that means that in a war, it's the market economies that are vastly more efficient and producing all you need to win one. In WWII the western allies absolutely clowned Germany, Japan, and to a lesser extent the Soviet Union with respect to production of materiel.

French revolution happened before Napoleon and he added little to its constitutional essence. He was an extremely talented commander, who seized national sentiment and usurped power at a time of turmoil. Here are some quotes from AH:

Although the constitution was rather weak (Napoleon always preferred constitutions to be "vague and short") and the plebiscite rigged, the fact that either occurred showed that this was not simply a return to the pre-1789 status quo.

Although Napoleon's plebiscites and Senate decrees supporting the Empire were often manufactured, they do show how deeply concerned Napoleon was over the perception he enjoyed popular support.

The French Revolution was a multifaceted political animal and Napoleon was able to tap into certain elements of French and Enlightenment politics to justify his dictatorship. Yet, as his ignominious disposal in 1814 by the Senate and his appeals to the Revolutionary liberalism in the Hundred Days show, Napoleon could not ignore the various political ideals and concepts the Revolution unleashed in 1789 despite his pretenses of being a figure above politics.

Another one:

I also think it's important to reiterate here that the Revolution was emphatically not about overthrowing the monarchy. The French peoples, for the most part, did not have an aversion to monarchy. They wanted good government above all else. There was not a longstanding tradition of Republican government. Compared with the almost thousand year rule of Kings in France, the Republic had existed from September 1792, to 1799, when Napoleon took power and instituted himself as First Consul in the Directory. During this time the Republic had gone through different phases, and as I mentioned it was not a strong, beloved government in the last few years of its life, but a much-maligned and in many cases despised form of government by both the left and the right.

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