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 -
I wrote a python script to copy each 2000-word chunk of a Yarvin article into my clipboard so I could paste each chunk into ChatGPT for a summary. Here is what ChatGPT said:
The passage discusses a prank phone call made to former Secretary of Defense Esper by Russian pranksters posing as the Ukrainian politician-oligarch Petro Poroshenko. Esper expresses his support for Ukraine and acknowledges the importance of supporting them with munitions, arms, and intelligence. The passage then questions why so many people have died in the war, which affects not only Ukraine but also Moldova, Georgia, and other places with Russian involvement. The author suggests that the conflict is primarily driven by local oligarchs vying for control and financial gain, and questions the effectiveness of US snake-handling in the situation. The author also notes the current situation in mid-February 2023, where it appears that the Ukrainian military is struggling on the battlefield, and the US is trying to make up for the production imbalance in industrial war by sending the latest tech. The author ultimately questions the motivation of the conflict, and whether it is worth the human cost.
The text is a political essay discussing the idea of liberalism and nationalism. The author argues that nationalism is a complex issue, and liberalism cannot be defined as a rigid ideology but rather as an ethical method whose ethics are questionable. The essay explores the concept of liberal nationalism and suggests that it is a thing, although there is also conservative nationalism that is considered bad nationalism. The author goes on to discuss how liberalism, as a movement, is never able to detach itself from its ruthless and unprincipled cousin, Machiavellian liberalism, and how liberal nationalism is always an expression of Machiavellian liberalism. The author also draws parallels between nationalism in Eastern Europe, the American enthusiasm for Vladimir Zelensky in 2022, and the American craze for Lajos Kossuth in 1852, suggesting that the pattern is not even specific to Eastern Europe. The essay ends with the idea that to study historical leftism as a unity, despite the notoriously fissiparous nature of leftist parties and sects.
This is a lengthy and complex passage that makes a number of points about international relations and the ideologies that guide them. The author argues that nationalism, despite its repeated failures, continues to appeal to people because it gives them a sense of power. They suggest that liberal internationalism, the idea that liberal values should be promoted globally, is essentially a bureaucratic exercise that serves to make officials feel powerful and important. The author then explores the history of liberal internationalism, tracing it back to British foreign policy in the early 19th century, and suggesting that its original intentions were more sound than they are today. The author concludes that contemporary internationalism is not even predatory, and that it is difficult to justify its actions in places like Ukraine.
More options
Context Copy link