site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   33253 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 2023

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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There are countless flaws in your argument, starting from the fact that Roman patriarchs considered family their literal property; to the obvious ability of the Taiwanese, majority ethnic Han and indeed many of them descendants of Han elite, the type most selected under those Han-specific civilizational pressures, to match and exceed «the white race» in humane civility and even aesthetics of their life; to the fact that the Chinese today have hundreds of millions of beloved pets. And of course there's plenty of love, loyalty and honesty in Chinese art, or found in relationships with Chinese people across the world. And we know generally that racial essentialism is a crude approximation for overlapping distributions, and that it's more sensible to speak of norms of reaction, and clearly such barbarity can be found in European history that the difference can only be said to be one of degree, not of kind... Honestly it's just trash. And your whole interpretation of foot-binding as aggression against kin to prevent running away, or whatever, is either atrociously disingenuous or so stupid as to make responding pointless. Read some interviews of surviving women from traditional families who have had that done to them, see what they think of it.

But let me put this aside. Let's grant the core of your thesis: that the Chinese civilization, with its peculiar circumstances, has created a separate human type, deficient in some aspects of humanity that the «western type» of human finds paramount. Simply put, that from your perspective the Han Chinese are less human.

Okay. This can certainly be the case, and I believe that even highly related peoples can have distinguishable genetic inclinations, like the old European racialists asserted. But, if we're dealing in extreme and stupid generalizations – then by my standard, you Hajnali goodbots are not fully human either, and far more dangerous. You personally are an apt example.

I think there is not a single perfect, fully human, race of man. Evolution is a cruel bitch and it didn't bother to create one I'd feel at home with. Certainly some groups, whites more obviously than others, have better competitiveness on the global scale, but this isn't about it. There are sparks of goodness and greatness in all major populations, but feeble, pointless and spinning into destructive attractors in separation from each other. Everyone is eager to get high on one's own group's supply, double down in natural inclinations. Asians are serious to the point of clowning themselves, thinking on the low level of optimizing the performance of inane arbitrary customs. Blacks are largely incapable of seriousness, which is why they can enjoy life more than anyone else. Arabs have a desire for epochal accomplishment, completely divorced from taste and prudence and so spilling back into their infertile sands as testaments to vanity. Russians are crazy, brilliant at finding ways to fuck themselves up. And you lot are so very marvelous at the scale of a Mannerbund or a village parish, but beyond that you can't handle psychopaths that emerge in any substantial population, and just get used, mumbling your nauseating «u can't get something outta nothing, sonny» or «u just need to believe in yourself» adages. Diversity is our strength indeed, except we're no good at really combining facets of our strengths, because we're blind and hostile to each other's Logos.

The principal mechanism of this is dehumanization. And I'd posit that whites are the worst in this department, this is one of your worst traits. You cannot suffer the heretic, the xenos, the mutant to live. You are overcome with disgust and an extermination impulse when you recognize something as genuinely alien. This fanaticism is not normal; neither are your aspirations to universal dominance of your doctrine, and therefore the fear of the Chinese is largely projection.

Following your Catholic Church programming, your futile wars of religion, and your acceptance of Jews (who are much more similar to the rest of the world, except more intelligent) into the ranks of your elites, you have devised (or have been taught) a way to cope with your tendencies. It's a primitive way: you simply insist on there being no real difference. Few notions in this world are more shallow than a Western liberal's idea of diversity; you think it's about puny cultural artifacts befitting of a theme park – garments, cuisine, language, inconsequential quirks, irrelevant myths and opinions. Even a slight deviation on a morally relevant dimension is cause to suppress the information, or explain it away with circumstances, pin the blame on some organized evil that can be vanquished. That's all just stopgaps.

You refuse to see others for what they are, because when you do, you start to hate. And in the process of not-seeing, you degrade yourself, before something finally gives. I am increasingly sympathetic to the Jewish paranoia that, if you were ever allowed to look past the «Judeo-Christian» front and once again properly notice them as a distinct race, a second Holocaust wouldn't have been out of the question. Where's Jewish Mickey Angelo, indeed?

The Chinese are not Anglo-Germans. They do not share your values. They do not share many of your weaknesses. It is harder to convince a Chinese than a White that being illiterate is «another way of reading», or hallucinating is «another way of knowing», or that economic collapse is desirable to clean our Lebensraum from the invisible poison of radiation. They are, in my impression, a bit less empathetic. But that's a form of wisdom too, which could help your race heal, if only you could see out of your ass anything that isn't either a warped mirror or the Devil himself.

天地不仁

以萬物為芻狗

聖人不仁

以百姓為芻狗

Heaven and Earth are not humane.

They regard all things as straw dogs.

The sage is not humane.

He regards all people as straw dogs.

Somehow, googling returns a number of pages where straw dogs are confused with straw men.

Also, my old grand theory about the Chinese-Western difference in mental style.

Mental/cultural inclinations emerge first as adaptations to the physical world and are then elaborated upon for symbolic activities in advanced economy. Exploration is, first, exploration of land and resources. I think East Asia has had the highest sustained density of human population (adjusted for arable land) throughout the last 60 or so generations, largely due to rice. As population density increased, so did the risk of exploration attempts, while the return on exploration fell: everywhere was settled and owned already (also you need relatively big groups to succeed with rice in a new location, I think). Thus, as Malthusian condition was reached, investment of time and energy went increasingly into exploitation of well-known affordances, effortful iterative improvement within given bounds; and into the development of the kind of intelligence that is good at noticing and making use of small-scale patterns and marginal resources quickly. Think of this exploration-exploitation transition like progress along a simulated annealing calculation.

"The West" has had an unnaturally prolonged exploration stage, in part because of mass deaths. USA used to grow extensively and have an active "wild" Frontier until only a century ago (see "yeoman ideal" etc). But mature intelligence tests were created after we, too, have settled into the "Asian" intensive mode, after colonialism, industrialization, Taylorism, credentialism and safetyism – when all returns are coming from improvements to carrying capacity of the given lot. American style capitalist Logos is pretty much the last one still yearning to expand. SpaceX is the embodiment of human exploration drive.

Hebrew prophets, Greek philosophers, Italian Renaissance artists or British inventors probably would have scored high on them, but they also were crazy risk-prone motherfuckers. If someone decided to create a test for genius in the early 18th century, aiming to predict Napoleon, I can at the very least suspect there'd be another distinctive factor besides g.  Something Musk has.

there'd be another distinctive factor besides g.  Something Musk has.

I mean, what do you think it is ?

Ruthless goal orientation, lack of adherence to norms, chutzpah, etc. The tales of crying, broken down managers. (not girls)

It's fairly clear what it is. Then there is his father.

You mean sociopathy, I guess? I don't think Musk fits into the construct. Isambard Kingdom Brunel certainly does not. I also don't think low-empathy Chinese managers are lacking in this trait. And chutzpah of the SBF, Adam Neumann or Elizabeth Holmes type is not creative whatsoever, it's merely imitating the superficial aspects of a visionary to divert resources to mundane ends.

No. Faustianism is a peculiar mental type, which doesn't survive in captivity for very long, and one our feminized civilization is no good at measuring or seeing.

It's a problem of semantics, really.

The term is used in various ways in contemporary usage. Robert Hare stated in the popular science book Snakes in Suits that sociopathy and psychopathy are often used interchangeably, but in some cases the term sociopathy is preferred because it is less likely than is psychopathy to be confused with psychosis, whereas in other cases the two terms may be used with different meanings that reflect the user's views on its origins and determinants. Hare contended that the term sociopathy is preferred by those that see the causes as due to social factors and early environment, and the term psychopathy preferred by those who believe that there are psychological, biological, and genetic factors involved in addition to environmental factors.[2] Hare also provides his own definitions: he describes psychopathy as lacking a sense of empathy or morality, but sociopathy as only differing from the average person in the sense of right and wrong.[30][31]

There's considerable amount of evidence to believe there's a distinct human subtype (psychopaths), people who lack affective empathy, most emotions, show anomalous reactions to fearful stimuli, and have no conscience whatsoever. Also are goal oriented to the point punishment doesn't seem to work on them, supposedly. Generally, you can train people and animals to avoid doing something using electroshocks, this doesn't work on psychopaths.

He's almost certainly not a complete psychopath, but probably has a good few traits.

You'd know he was one because he'd have likely kept Amber Heard as a wife. Psychopaths love crazy women, the crazier the better.

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