site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   38489 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I heard a quote awhile ago that was something like "be careful telling people they are Nazis, because one day they might believe you."

Part of the problem is that "Nazi, fascist, far-right extremist, white supremacist" have been so over-used that people are now reacting "If that makes me a Nazi, okay I'm a Nazi" instead of falling over themselves trying to deny it or dropping whatever argument they had been making.

Trump is a fascist. DeSantis is a fascist. I'm a fascist, you're a fascist, they're a fascist. Everybody except me and the six people who agree with me in lockstep are fascists, and as soon as one of them demurs even slightly from my list of acceptable right-think, they'll be a fascist too.

Either that, or they're "reactionaries", another favorite left-wing snarl word.

That view's now become common in our political parlance, as a result of Democrats and leftists alike having their heads this deep in their own ass. I've never encountered any political opposition that can currently and coherently articulate a right-wing viewpoint, without satirizing or sneering at it. I'll admit I've got positions on things that could be found at home within Fascist ideology, but to them, there isn't even a normal right-wing. There's only the 'sane and normal' leftism that claims to travel the middle of the road, and right-wing, neofascist extremism, the moment you even venture an inch to the right of that.

Define "coherently"

Are we talking "internally consistant" or are we talking about "abiding by the norms of inductive reason and dialectical materialism" because if the latter it's lack of coherency is arguably a feature rather than a bug.

I recall having had conversations with genuine ultra progressive leftists who I’m reasonably sure have changed their gender since then, who admitted I made fascism sound reasonable even if they didn’t disagree with it. They’re clearly capable of interfacing with right wing ideas even if they don’t understand what fascism is, they just don’t. I think most of that is filter bubble.

They're capable of interfacing with the 'form' it takes, but not the actual fascist political organs themselves. Yet they get funny in the head when I point out to them that it works the other way around, too. The CCP for instance, is highly Democratic 'in form', if you accept the Democratic principle that government is justified by the consent of those they govern. Plenty of people are happy and content with the lifestyle improvements that the CCP has delivered for them. Now a leftist may reply back, that well even if they didn't approve, they couldn't do away the CCP, despite wanting to vote them out of office. And I could always reply back, that the same is true of the 'so-called' Democracy we have here in the US. If a leftist is content with the illusion of our effective two-party duopoly, then I suppose that'll suffice for them. But that's a pretty superficial political endorsement. By that standard, Cuba could've become a Democracy overnight, if the choices were between Fidel Castro and his brother Raul. But I tend to think you've got Democracy only in name, and not in actuality. Yes, Democracy is 'also' an autonomous political system, but that doesn't mean authoritarian systems can't be 'highly' Democratic.

Leftists are all but fully content with the near full on, totalitarian cultural stranglehold they've got over the country. The largest states in the US are effectively the trendsetters for the direction the rest of the country takes, after themselves. But I have no illusions that they actually believe any of their idealized principles. They're equally prejudiced asswipes in the opposite direction. And that's fair enough. As a right-winger, I'm playing that same game. But I'm not peddling bullshit in the process. I'm not someone for instance that would go around saying bodily autonomy is important, and then violate that all but 'sacred' principle, the moment COVID mandates get brought up. If you're a hypocritical POS, own it out in the open.

I’d better go read all this fascist literature to understand who I am

Part of the problem is that "Nazi, fascist, far-right extremist, white supremacist" have been so over-used that people are now reacting "If that makes me a Nazi, okay I'm a Nazi" instead of falling over themselves trying to deny it or dropping whatever argument they had been making.

It's weird how nobody seems to recognize this, from either side. The right keeps diluting "socialism", and then the left calls them on it... and proceeds to dilute "fascism".

Ironically, the right only showcases their own ignorance when they call someone like Joe Biden a socialist. It's one of the most insane and asinine things I've ever heard.

People say this shit as self evidently true but really why is it self evident? Biden doesn’t believe in government ownership of the means of production but he seems pretty into the government control of the means of production along with re distributing wealth (albeit to his tribe). The amount of money the federal government spends would make many socialist governments blush.

He isn’t a 1960s socialist but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a socialist.

I'm extremely confused on what you're getting at (or even talking about?).

It's pretty clear. Biden has enough socialist policies that calling him a socialist is not "showcasing his own ignorance".

What socialist policies does Joe Biden promulgate? Last I checked, he isn't trying to democratize Walmart, trying to make it look more like the Mondragon Corporation.

I was explaining the post you replied to because you didn't understand it. The post you replied to describes such policies.

Yeah but the amount of people who'd outwardly self-identify as Socialist/Marxist influenced is far greater than the amount of people who'd outwardly self-identify as fascist.

Yes, because the professed ideals of socialism (universal brotherhood of man, equality, freedom from toil and force and brute necessity, creation of riches and plenty for all, etc.) are pretty consistent with the professed goals of western liberal civilization.

Thus, it's easy to convert people to a crude form of socialist-identity just by saying "don't you want sick people to be treated by doctors? Don't you want people not to starve? Don't you want people not to have to work 16-hour days in horrible coal mines?" and yadda-yadda-ing and handwaving (or even just ignoring) the question of how we get from here to there.

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