site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   28172 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 26, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You're rapidly going to outstrip my knowledge of history and philosophy. I was (un)fortunate enough to attend a college that let me avoid anything that wasn't a science class. No liberal arts education where I'm from.

Are liberalism/the Enlightenment the same thing, in your view? Connected things? Entirely separate things?

I may be about to reveal my ignorance, but I associate the Enlightenment with a period of history and liberalism with a political/social philosophy. I suppose 'Enlightenment values' may have significant overlap with liberalism, but I imagine the latter has developed significantly in the past few centuries.

Is the US a liberal democracy? Was it one prior to the civil rights act? Prior to suffrage? Prior to the abolition of slavery? If we reversed some or all of these policies tomorrow, would we still be a "liberal democracy"? Is "liberal democracy" applied based on objective criteria, or do we judge a nation relative to its contemporaries?

It's not a binary, thus the need for 'democracy indices' and the like. As well argue whether Jefferson was a racist/abolitionist, JK Rowling a feminist, so on and so forth.

As for absolute versus relative scales, why not both? I'm humble enough to expect that my descendants will think me barbaric in one way or another, which in turn makes me more sympathetic towards my forebears. Nevertheless, chattel slavery seems like an objectively open-and-shut case for us to judge, no?

I'd answer yes to all of those questions, but each step was an improvement in degree rather than a categorical change.

More to the point, do we label based on the ideological approach to policy, or do we judge based on the policies chosen and their outcomes?

Both. Everything in moderation, including consequentialism and deontology.

The Soviets promised most of the things on that list, claimed to be motivated by Enlightenment principles while doing it, and insisted strenuously that they were delivering. Of course, we know they were "illiberal" thanks to hindsight, despite the fact that most of their unimpeachably liberal contemporaries completely failed to recognize that fact for a generation or two. Do you see the problem?

Yes, but your argument cuts both ways. The Crusades, witch trials and inquisitions, antisemitism/islamophobia, all the sectarian conflicts through the centuries. People have done twisted things in the name of ideology...since the development of language, I imagine? Insofar as your goal is to elevate Christianity at the expense of a secular Enlightenment, I'm not buying it. If you're trying to reduce the argument to a relativistic 'Well, everyone does bad things sometimes, ideology isn't all that important after all' I think you have a stronger leg to stand on, but I still disagree.

We're trying to boil massively complex systems down to four axes; Christian/non-Christian and liberal/illiberal. Clearly we'll never explain the variance in every society, but regardless, I still think there's a signal in the noise insofar as liberal democracies are concerned. Perhaps the biodeterminists are correct, and the US is successful due to superior genetic stock. Or Jared Diamond, /r/badhistory darling, has the right of it and the US would have ascended purely by dint of it's natural resources, livestock, etc etc. You'd like to believe Christianity has been a force for good in the world as it flatters your biases, I prefer a secular one as it flatters mine. How could we ever definitively answer that question? The 'winner' of this debate would likely be based on the intellect/knowledge/effort of it's participants rather than any objective underlying truth.

The problem with this is that Enlightenment ideology has repeatedly resulted in wildly illiberal outcomes, and the most successful "liberal" societies have not actually hued very closely to Enlightenment ideology in a number of very important ways, among them a deep and abiding connection to the Christian faith. I note that societies that lacked or removed this connection in favor of pure Enlightenment ideology did very, very badly indeed, and I note that as Christian faith has passed the tipping point into serious decline, even anglosphere countries have found themselves in a protracted crisis of rising illiberalism.

How about those Soviets? Their RETVRN to traditional Christian values hasn't exactly sparked a Golden Age. Not to mention the piles of nominally Christian nations resulting in wildly unchristian outcomes.

You look at a half century of evaporating church membership and associate that with 'decline.' Meanwhile, the generation that came of age in that time witnessed the triumph of the west in the cold war, unprecedented wealth creation and improved outcomes nearly across the board. Are we just coasting on the religiosity of the Greatest generation?

Furthermore, the supposedly more liberal United States of a hundred years ago, while undeniably more Christian, was not particularly well-disposed towards Islamic/Chinese immigrants, Catholics, etc.

The Enlightenment is certainly one of the sources American Culture has drawn from, but it has drawn even more heavily from others; when it comes time to tally benefits and harms, all the benefits are tallied to the Enlightenment, whether it caused them or not, and all the harms are tallied to the others, whether they were responsible for them or not. Then too, one can simply ignore or define away harms in the present, and likewise for benefits in the past; history is just writing, after all, and statistics are famously malleable. I think the above is how the liberal triumphalism you're describing is generated, and I think it's a fair start at describing why it is doomed to collapse.

It's a fair criticism, and the road to stagnation is paved with complacency/triumphalism. Moar liberalism and 'Getting out the vote' is not the cure to every problem in our society, nor am I arrogant enough to think that liberal democracies will be the law of the land until the heat death of the universe.

But if you actually want to change someone's beliefs, you need to offer them an alternative. I believe that much of the good in the West (universal suffrage, literacy, unalienable rights, etc) represents progress in the same way that walking -> chariot -> automobile -> airplane does, regardless of it's provenance. I believe that in the postwar period, a group of great statesmen and bureaucrats had a vision rooted in...enlightenment/Christian values and were really Onto Something. Since then, much of the world has copied our playbook and caught up to varying degrees. I don't believe this represents decline; rather, it's just an opportunity to hit on the next civilizational phase change...which undoubtedly will take progressives of one flavor or another.

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