site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   35217 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As an aside, I find Turchin's theories to be unconvincing. His "overproduction thesis" doesn't explain why the social unrest and "woke explosion" happened in the US during the 2010s but not in, say, Denmark or much of Europe.

I think his main problem is that he's a materialist, like most Marxist intellectuals are. The core issue driving social unrest in the US is race and secondly gender (particularly the trans issue). None of those things have any direct bearing with elites per se in a material sense, but rather about identity. Marxists are notoriously bad at understanding this distinction and frankly so are many right-wingers with their naïve (but admirable) colorblind ideology.

That said, on the trans issue, the right has a much better and clearer understanding of the underlying conflict which is why they are, for once, doing quite well in the culture war in this area. Marxist materialism is simply useless here.

I think his main problem is that he's a materialist, like most Marxist intellectuals are.

It depends on what you mean by materialist. Even Karl Marx himself spent most of the 1840ies laying groundwork for his later thinking, but in 1840ies he was much more theoretical. In his books such as Economic and Philosophical Manuscript he inverts Hegelian idealism on its head. But only in so much as to claim that it is not some ultimate idea , or Geist trying to use history and dialectics, but for Marx the role of the Geist is replaced by Man, specifically Man as species being. For Marx the man recreates himself via his Work, unalienated labor that takes paramount position.

But it is this cycle where man uses Praxis of work to refine Theory, which then shapes society which in turn reshapes man in dialectical cycle. The nature of The Work itself is malleable, for Marx it was literally the manual labor of proletariat wielding literal hammers and sickles. But for modern Marxists it may also be broader work, reality is socially constructed is it not? It is our duty to socially shape reality by doing The Work to bring about better tomorrow, reshaping institutions and seizing the means of cultural production. It is at least as important as seizing the means of industrial and agricultural production, because in the end what we are sculpting is the New Soviet Man and he is product of culture broadly defined.

But race and gender would not be so salient if we could sufficiently get out of each other's faces, and that has a dry, materialist component, implicating techno-commercial and economic trends.

Tangentially, I wonder, who might be an example of a right materialist? James Manzi?

Michael Lind might count but I think he's sort of been slid into the right wing camp by default, via the left changing its tune.

The more market-oriented libertarians - as opposed to Gadsden flag-waving anti-government types - have been called the Marxists of the right, so there's that.

ditto. i don't think grand narratives can or should be dismissed outright but I think his is wrong . some narratives are better/accurate than others

I’m not going to defend Turchin, but I would point out that the emergence of the Woke/Anti-Woke dynamics would require something of an explanation simply because all of the groups involved have always existed in the USA and could get along fairly well until 2010.

They still do largely get along. The feeling they don't is a manifestation of the inescapeability and heightened new sense of memetic domination and the always-on media mindshare.

wokeism existed well before social media. people have been getting cancelled and protested long before the 2010s such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen#cite_note-scarr-14

After the paper was released, large protests were held, demanding that Jensen be fired. Jensen's car tires were slashed, the university police provided him with plain-clothes bodyguards, and he and his family received threats that were considered so realistic by the police that they temporarily left their house. Jensen was spat on and was prevented from delivering lectures by disruptive protests. The editorial board of the Harvard Educational Review for a time refused to let him have reprints of his article, and said that they had not solicited the section on racial differences; Jensen later provided correspondence in which the board had requested he do so.[14][15][16]

this was 1969

Black people and most of the rest have never gotten along. We had detente, but never peace. And Jefferson was probably right -- they never will, the "ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained" will never fade.

There is no such thing as all black people and all white (or other racial groups) people getting along.

This is a quibble; we can speak meaningfully of groups "getting along" without worrying about whether it's true for "all people".

As an aside, I find Turchin's theories to be unconvincing. His "overproduction thesis" doesn't explain why the social unrest and "woke explosion" happened in the US during the 2010s but not in, say, Denmark or much of Europe.

Some hypotheses:

  1. Because the US viciously exploited black people not too long ago, on average white Americans probably feel more guilt towards black people than, say, white French people feel towards Algerians. Of course the French fought a brutal war in Algeria not long ago, but it did not practice chattel enslavement of Algerians on a massive scale. When Algerians riot in France, white French feel relatively little guilt-sympathy towards them compared to how white American feel towards black Americans. And if, say, Chechens riot in France then white French have essentially no reason to feel any guilt towards them at all.

  2. The police in the US are more heavily militarized and more able and willing to shoot people than police in Europe are. This is in part because the US has higher violent crime rates and much higher private gun ownership than Europe does, so as a reaction cops are heavily armed and jittery. And it is probably also in part because of other factors that have to do with the particular history of police forces in the US as opposed to Europe. In any case, the result is that in the US there is a constant stream of stories about cops shooting black people, mentally ill people, and members of other groups that are widely considered to be victims of oppression. This then provides evidence to buttress the woke ideology that "America is a near-fascist state that is massively oppressing black people", etc.

  3. Stronger social safety nets in Europe compared to the US make people more relaxed overall, less willing to believe that their societies are horribly oppressive, and less interested in getting into political ideologies that call for sweeping social changes.

  4. The sudden 2015 migrant crisis caused Western Europe, in reaction, to lurch on average away from wokism on at least some issues. In the US this did not happen.

Stronger social safety nets in Europe compared to the US make people more relaxed overall, less willing to believe that their societies are horribly oppressive, and less interested in getting into political ideologies that call for sweeping social changes.

European countries, which have much more generous social safety nets, far-right/left parties have actual seats in government, unlike in the US. I posit a bigger social safety net means people have less reason to compete professionally, or to get ahead at work, or be obedient for fear of being fired, so have the discretion and free time to take up fringe political causes, knowing that being fired is not a big deal compared to here. in the US a lot of people outgrow this sort of stuff because they have jobs.

less interested in getting into political ideologies that call for sweeping social changes.

That doesn't match up with the histories of Europe and the USA either today or historically. The USA like the UK and other Anglo countries have always been less prone to sweeping social movements like Communism or Fascism then their continental cousins. You can't really compare the USA to countries like France, Germany or Russia. Just look at the amount of regime change in these countries compared to the Anglos that have remained remarkably stable.

  1. Slavery ended 150 years ago. In contrast the French were beating up algerians well within living memory.

  2. This is not the anecdata usually reported by Americans who get off the beaten path in Europe, who report that police brutality is a lot more brutal there.

3 and 4 are possible, but I think the real reason is that African Americans are unambiguously American in a way that French Algerians are not unambiguously French.

As I recall, he considers Denmark and the Scandinavian countries some of the places that are following his preferred policies to reduce inequality, so would consider their lack of drama a sign that his theory is on the right track.

One of the reasons I am willing to hear Turchin out, despite some obvious flaws, is because it seems like it would be better to consider the race and LGBT+ drama in America as inter-elite, since it seems to mostly be that top 10% vying for position and showing off how unusually tolerant, good, special, and thus deserving they are, unconnected to the challenges of the black working class, or the underclass who could, if circumstanced improved, be working class. This has been discussed to death here already.

His "overproduction thesis" doesn't explain why the social unrest and "woke explosion" happened in the US during the 2010s but not in, say, Denmark or much of Europe.

Because US had a headstart on the whole whining begets winning. And in EU the whole blood and soil thing still holds stronger.

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