site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35571 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Seconded, it's downstream of tribal identifications and the theory only applies as written to white Americans. Efforts to identify left and right with cosmic ideals and determine if the Reformation was left or right wing fail because it's all downstream of tribal identifications, then good for my tribe versus bad for my tribe. I suspect that is somewhat genetic.

So inasmuch as D=antiwhite and R=prowhite, white people who are pro tribe identify one way and white people who are anti tribe identify the other. But black people with the pro tribe gene are going to vote D, as are most Mexicans, gays, Jews, and Asians although less clearly than whites and blacks. Class is another confounder, and in societies without similar racial politics probably ruins the project.

I don't think this is accurate at all, though though I can see how such a claim would be convenient for those wishing to push identity politics.

As much as the terms get abused both in general and on theMotte in particular, I still think that the terms "right" and "left" point to important differences in philosophy and political approach. Allowing the pro-IdPol crowd to redefine Left and Right along tribal lines requires us to com up with a new name for the existing split, and seeing as IdPol seems to be particular to one side of that split I'd rather just push back against the redefinition.

Having read a lot of history, and not just history but old history, IE stuff from when a lot of the events described were still within living memory. It seems obvious to me that there are two distinct intellectual traditions/schools of thought that arose in the aftermath of the 30 years war, with the followers of guys like Calvin, Hobbes, and Montesquieu forming one and the followers of Locke, Kant, and Rousseau the other. While these two schools of thought might correlate to tribal affiliation with different groups showing an affinity for one or the other. However the match is far from 1 to 1. What they do match almost 1 for 1 though which side someone finds themselves on during the French Revolution, or English Civil war.

So in short, I reject your framing.

Democrats are not anti-white so much as they are pro-identity politics. Ditto Republicans are not so much pro-white so much as the are unabashedly "Nationalist/Pro-America". That "the only valid form of Nationalism is Ethnonationalism" and that "America = White supremacy" is a load of bullshit pushed upon us by woke propogandists and their allies on the alt-right who both dream of overturning the existing constitutional order in favor of a system of racial spoils.

I, in turn, reject your framing. I, too, have read a lot of history, including plenty of contemporary historiography. I agree with you that

It seems obvious to me that there are two distinct intellectual traditions/schools of thought that arose in the aftermath of the 30 years war, with the followers of guys like Calvin, Hobbes, and Montesquieu forming one and the followers of Locke, Kant, and Rousseau the other.

And that works for upper class educated white Christian men during those times in those relevant places. A hypothetical neutrally situated free man who reads Hobbes and reads Locke and decides which he likes better, that might well predict

... which side someone finds themselves on during the French Revolution, or English Civil war.

But of course, most people aren't neutrally situated, most people find themselves on one side or the other of the Revolution because their family or their friends or the other men in their town joined that side and they followed along. You might later take up the ideology associated with that side, but you were a Cavalier or a Roundhead before you knew why. I'm going to cite some historical fiction, because it's a fun scene in a classic movie. In Master and Commander where Jack Aubrey is getting his crew hyped up for battle against the French ship.

Capt. Jack Aubrey: Do you want to see a guillotine in Piccadilly? NO! Want to call that raggedy-ass Napoleon your king? NO! You want your children to sing the "La Marseillaise?" NO!

It is blindingly obvious that nobody on that ship besides Aubrey and the Doctor has serious opinions on Rousseau and Calvin. Maybe some of the other officers are aware, at a sixth grade level, of the ideology involved but it is highly doubtful they'd have seriously read about it. But there all the men are, shouting about the guillotine and Napoleon, as though it all means something to them. Their position on those questions is more tribal than intellectual.

So on a spectrum between our hypothetical neutral educated man, and the illiterate cheering crew on Jack Aubrey's ship, where do we put everyone else?

If we're going to argue that political ideology has any kind of genetic or heritable aspect, which I'm not sure I agree on, it can only work when examined fully in context. It makes zero sense to say that one has an inherent genetic predisposition towards Marxism, or an inherent genetic predisposition towards Milton Friedman, without considering how those economic ideologies are going to impact your actual life. A rich man who is a Marxist would probably be exercising a different genetic pathway than a working man who is a Marxist. That's the point, if we're going to talk about a gene or a set of genes that impacts both your facial/physical structure and your ideology, it's a different set of genes depending how you are situated.

Consider this quote from a South African radical:

He seemed to relish having chosen a side, to have a politics to fall back on when complicated moments like this arose. And he had relished talking about Andile Mngxitama, an adversary who had chosen a side just as he had, and who spoke plainly about making whites bow down in the face of a black power that Roche was convinced was swelling and would soon engulf the country. “If that’s how Andile sees it, then I respect it a great deal,” he said. “To that I only say we must fight it out, and let’s die like men.”

As you say, the alt-right and the woke left have a lot in common, they know their side. But more than that, your white Proud Boy and your Black NFAC have a lot in common. And your white guilt wokies and your Republican Stepin Fetchits have a lot in common. If there's anything genetic to politics, I'd look at that similarity before I'd look at how people read Hobbes and Rousseau.

Which, to come back to the question of the Finnish MPs, is the point: you can't translate "Oh, dudes who become leftists will be like ____" to other countries and other contexts without thinking about race, religion, class, history, regionality. Those all determine whether High T or low sociability men will be rightists or leftists.

It is blindingly obvious that nobody on that ship besides Aubrey and the Doctor has serious opinions on Rousseau and Calvin.

Sure, I would even go so far as to suggest that it is unlikely that anyone on the ship other Doctor Maturin has more than a vague idea of who Rousseau and Calvin were, much less what they were about. On the flip side I think it is equally blindingly obvious that most of the named characters have very strong feelings about loyalty, discipline, personal responsibility, the natural state of man, the fundamental role Government, the burdens of Command, etc... And that there the real substance of what I'm talking about. It's not about whether one identifies as a Hobbesian, Rousseauan or whatever, it's about where your priorities lie are when the chips are down.

Amusingly your own comment illustrates a lot of those differences.

Your assumption that "what works for upper class educated white Christian men during those times" is going to be fundamentally different from what works for any man in any time is perhaps one of the first and most obvious.

You say "I'd look at that similarity before I'd look at how people read Hobbes and Rousseau." and that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm observing that the ideological distance between the white guilt liberals, woke progressives, alt-rights ethnonationalits, and Landian-accelerationists is tiny compared to the differences between any of them and the median Republican. Furthermore I'm making the observation that one's assumptions about loyalty, discipline, personal responsibility, the natural state of man, the fundamental role Government, the burdens of Command, etc... is a major component of that distance.

Democrats are not anti-white so much as they are pro-identity politics.

Pro-identity politics for everyone except for white males (especially heterosexual white males), who are expected to be universalist.

No it's pro-identity politics all around. Have you not noticed that the most vocal "white-nationalists" (Spencer, Yiannopoulos, Fuentes, Yarvin, Et Al) always seem to be former marxists from schools like Berkeley and University of Chicago? This is not a coincidence.

They're now heretics, though, not Democrats. They learned the lesson without the appropriate exceptions.

Heretics they may be, but they till have more in common with their fellow democrats than they do anyone outside the party.

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