site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 1, 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.

9
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

what's the use of anyone knowing the Truth if Power can't be moved by it?

Living a good life, surely.

This is sort of the weird critical theory obsession that truth is only useful insofar as it brings power, borne to be sure out of the betrayed promise of the enlightenment that the two are married.

But they're not. Power is really not about truth at all except through the connection of practical means. A good sovereign listens to the scientists, but his power isn't derived from them, otherwise both science and good rule are impossible.

And note that this is as true in a democracy as it is in a monarchy.

Is he just betting it all on lucking into a short run of a few Good Emperors before it goes back to shit again?

Rather he accepts that human nature will do what human nature does and that we should take what we can get. From his point of view democracy guarantees brainwashing, whereas monarchy at least gives you the possibility of doing things so long as you're not meddling in politics yourself.

Frankly the whole point of society is just to have some order so people can live nice little lives unbothered by turmoil and maybe some philosophers can work on improving our lot.

Putting the philosophers on the throne is, whilst deviously tempting, the path of destruction.

This is sort of the weird critical theory obsession that truth is only useful insofar as it brings power, borne to be sure out of the betrayed promise of the enlightenment that the two are married.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the idea that the truth is only useful/true insofar as it leads to political power kind of a core axiom of the whole critical theory/post-modernist edifice? That is the natural conclusion/logical end-point/reductio-ad-absurdam of the personal being political is it not?