site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34967 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But you seem to be arguing that it is fundamentally impossible to continue a civilization w/o its founders.

Civilization is such a massive ship that of course it's going to continue in some form and on some trajectory without its founders. Likewise, civilizational decline is so huge that it can't really be turned on a dime. I am speaking more to the self-defeating ethos of conservatism: people don't matter in their essence, or they are at least interchangeable, only ideas matter and that's what should be conserved.

You can't conserve an idea if you don't conserve a people, that's my argument. Civilization is not an idea, it's a people.

You can't conserve an idea if you don't conserve a people, that's my argument. Civilization is not an idea, it's a people.

To which the obvious solution is: let the people consist of those who embrace the idea. Which is exactly what the Christian Church did, by the way: "There is no Jew or Greek..."; and also "church fathers", "ancestors in the faith".

To which the obvious solution is: let the people consist of those who embrace the idea.

Or they could just use your belief in the idea for their own interests while superficially "embracing the idea" by quoting the Statue of Liberty or something.

Which is exactly what the Christian Church did, by the way: "There is no Jew or Greek..."; and also "church fathers", "ancestors in the faith".

I am aware of that, which is why I constantly ask Hlynka why he doesn't see Christianity as the intellectual tradition that is cut from the same cloth as progressivism.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus

That synthesis of semitic mysticism and Platonism sounds an awful lot like progressivism...

Progressivism is quite distinctively post-Christian and not post-Islamic or post-Hindu or whatever. There is a reason that post-Christian places like the Netherlands and Sweden are quite progressive whereas India or the Middle East or China identify progressivism even among their secular populations as a western import.

I mean, progressivism is post-Christian, it didn't develop in a vacuum. Or, to quote G.K. Chesterton:

The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.

He was writing over 100 years ago, but progressivism has been around for a while.

But in the sense of say, American civilization, there are no people. America is a country but it isn't a nation. It was diverse at its founding, both ethnically and religiously, and it's hard to point to one group as having had an outsized influence on the development of American civilization, both in the founding era and going forward. Which is why the American alt-right nationalism never made intellectual sense, because it's argument is essentially ahistorical.

It was diverse at its founding, both ethnically and religiously, and it's hard to point to one group as having had an outsized influence on the development of American civilization

All civilization has a level of ethnic diversity. That doesn't at all undermine my point, that changing the people would change the civilization. Russia is diverse, but if it became majority Hispanic in 100 years, you wouldn't say "well that doesn't matter because Russia was already diverse." It would obviously change the nature and trajectory of Russian civilization.

To say that it's hard to point at a closely-related subset of groups that have had an "outsized influence" on the development of Western, and American, civilization is just exceedingly obtuse. It was obviously founded and developed as a European civilization with European population groups that colonized the nation.

Which is why the American alt-right nationalism never made intellectual sense, because it's argument is essentially ahistorical.

American alt-right concerns over race are far more aligned with the historical concerns of the founders and public opinion all the way through the end of the second world war and beyond. The idea that "America is an idea and race doesn't matter" is a post-war retcon that is ahistorical with respect to the establishment of American civilization.

The reason alt-right nationalism doesn't make sense is because the ship has sailed, and demographic change is baked into the cake and there's no realistic future in which it does not happen. It's not something that can any more be opposed, it just has to be considered a premise to political and cultural thinking moving forward. But unlike Hlynka, who would maintain optimism that the people don't matter as long as we cling to the same ideas, it's the alt-right that is aware of the revolutionary consequences of demographic change and the incoherence of a conservative mindset in the face of such changes.

But it also presents an opportunity to jettison the toxic "intellectual traditions" and advocate for ones that are better.

To say that it's hard to point at a closely-related subset of groups that have had an "outsized influence" on the development of Western, and American, civilization is just exceedingly obtuse. It was obviously founded and developed as a European civilization with European population groups that colonized the nation.

Well, no. It wasn't founded as a European civilization, it was founded first as an extension of the British Empire and later as an explicit rejection of traditional European civilization. Enlightenment ideals were certainly European in origin, but they were specifically northern, Protestant European in origin at the very widest definition, and for all practical purposes were English and Scottish in origin. The Italians, Hungarians, Poles, etc. had little to nothing to do with Enlightenment thought. And in practice most of Europe was living under a system much more illiberal than that which the colonists were rebelling against.

So to say that the American civilization was founded by Europeans may be a true statement, but if the founders had any nationalist tendencies at the time, they would have been limited to those of English and maybe Scottish or Dutch descent. Those who were wont to deny various outsider groups status as "real Americans" set their sights first on Swedes and German Protestants in the 18th century, then on Irish and German Catholics in the 19th, then on Poles, Italians, Greeks, Russians, Czechs, Slovaks, Rusyns, Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes in the early 20th. Is that the argument you're making now, that the only true inheritors of the American civilization are Anglo-Saxons? If not, why not?

Enlightenment ideals were certainly European in origin, but they were specifically northern, Protestant European in origin at the very widest definition, and for all practical purposes were English and Scottish in origin. The Italians, Hungarians, Poles, etc. had little to nothing to do with Enlightenment thought.

Assuming that Cesare Beccaria ("... widely considered one of the greatest thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment... well remembered for his treatise On Crimes and Punishments (1764), which condemned torture and the death penalty, and was a founding work in the field of penology... considered the father of modern criminal law and the father of criminal justice") does not cut it as Italian contribution to the Enlightenment, doesn't your definition of Enlightenment as "specifically northern, Protestant European" leave out a massive hole by the name of France? Descartes and Pascal, Diderot and d'Alembert, Condorcet, Buffon, Turgot, Montesquieu, Voltaire? (And Rousseau, if we count French-speaking Switzerland EDIT: although admittedly, he was protestant) And there's much more if you also consider scientific and technological contributions, though I suppose this was specifically about intellectual/ideological developments.

Well, no. It wasn't founded as a European civilization, it was founded first as an extension of the British Empire and later as an explicit rejection of traditional European civilization.

You are begging the question and in fact proving my point. Nobody considers the rise of American hegemony to be a break from "Western Civilization"; America is included in that fold despite those liberal innovations in its intellectual tradition. The continuity between the British Empire and American Empire within the broader framework of Western Civilization proves my argument that the West is not defined by a grand intellectual tradition, it's defined by the behavior of European people which has formulated different intellectual ideas at different points of time and in different contexts.

In the American context, liberalism can and should be seen an an innovation on the organization of power, and a (largely post-hoc) intellectual justification for rebellion and legitimacy, with Social Contract theory being hardly less of a "noble lie" than the Divine Right.

An intellectual tradition is a tool of a people or civilization to coordinate behavior and consensus, and justify the use of power. But it's dynamic, an intellectual tradition does not define a civilization.

The entire point is that post-Christianity and post-liberalism may be necessary for the future of Western Civilization. The emergence of liberalism itself proves that radicalism may be conducive for the growth of Civilization if it improves upon or replaces deficiencies with traditional ways of thinking.

Hlynka's arguments could have been, and were, cited by Loyalist traditionalists who opposed the emergence of secular, radical, liberal political thinking. He probably would have opposed those liberal radicals questioning the Divine-Right precepts of Western Civilization in those days.

You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that America is a break from "Western Civilization", I'm arguing that "Western Civilization" is too broad a concept to consider as the basis for nationhood, as is evidenced by the fact that America's founders certainly didn't see it that way (they were arguing for liberal principles, not that the colonies were a separate nation from Britain), and to the extent that some of them did view it as a nation, their conception of that nation was limited to exclude most Europeans. In any event, it still doesn't account for why the alt-right excludes Jews, despite them being as Western as anyone else on the list.

The alt-right sees jews as adversaries, and responsible for harming the country / going against what they think Western civilization should be.

For example, regarding foreign policy:

Skittish Jew Dweeb Blinken Says “Viscerally, Most Americans Don’t Like a Big Country Bullying Another”

America has bullied every single country on earth, and is presently in the process of bullying all of Western Europe, most of Latin America, black Africans, Asians, and several different Moslem countries.

If Americans don’t like big countries bullying smaller countries, they should stop supporting the sickening Jew government.

[...]

Not only is this skittish individual a member of the elite ruling establishment of the global anal empire, he’s Jewish.

What did the Jews do to Palestine, Jew, if not literally “erase it from the map”?

Here's a compilation of reactions to a fundraiser for the ADL, an organization promoting antisemitism:

You should not have tried to destroy Ye. It was a very, very bad move.

The history books will remember the smearing and bankrupting of Ye as the beginning of the end of the Jewish dominion over America.

Fundamentally, the alt-righters see the ADL and other groups as opposed to their interests.

I'm arguing that "Western Civilization" is too broad a concept to consider as the basis for nationhood

to the extent that some of them did view it as a nation, their conception of that nation was limited to exclude most Europeans.

Your argument, read over several posts, seems to be that where we "draw the line" on who assimilates into the American nation is largely arbitrary and has changed over the centuries. In support of this point you mention the different immigrant groups people have complained about over the years, which, of course, has included many different sorts of non-Anglo-Saxon white people. And you accurately mention that the origins of American civilization are specifically English and Northwestern European Protestant, not Italian, Hungarian, Polish, etc.

Where I disagree with you is that "Western Civilization," i.e. European origin, is too broad of a concept for the basis of nationhood, or that the conception of that nation truly excluded most Europeans. In 1790 Congress restricted naturalization to white people, not to "English and Dutch and Scottish Protestant liberals" or "Anglo-Saxons." Similar naturalization restrictions continued until well within living memory--even when the laws favored Northwestern Europeans after 1924, the other allowed groups were still Europeans, even if Southern and Eastern Europeans were considered less desirable Europeans. Non-Westerners were not allowed at all! Here's how the Supreme Court thought of the question in 1923 when debating the naturalization of an Indian man:

It is a matter of familiar observation and knowledge that the physical group characteristics of the Hindus render them readily distinguishable from the various groups of persons in this country commonly recognized as white. The children of English, French, German, Italian, Scandinavian, and other European parentage, quickly merge into the mass of our population and lose the distincitive hallmarks of their European origin. On the other hand, it cannot be doubted that the children born in this country of Hindu parents would retain indefinitely the clear evidence of their ancestry. It is very far from our thought to suggest the slightest question of racial superiority or inferiority. What we suggest is merely racial difference, and it is of such character and extent that the great body of our people instinctively recognize it and reject the thought of assimilation.

In the US, there was a historically-recognized kinship between the many different types of people who made up "Western Civilization," and rather than being too broad, this concept was successfully used to create nationhood.

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