site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The skin color of the leadership seems pretty important to SA.

And yet somehow less important than whether the leadership are a bunch of Marxists.

Necessary but not guaranteed

Nothing outside death gravity and taxes is ever guaranteed, and even taxes leave a fair bit of wiggle room.

Human society being complex is hardly a novel idea, nor something with any real explanatory power.

Above you said:

Imagine looking at the state of South Africa and thinking 'what this country really needs is more brain drain, capital flight, international isolation, and even more intense ethnic conflict.'

This statement makes little sense. No on is in favor of that for them (although, I think full evacuation of the white population is probably best for them long term). It is that the majority is ungovernable without large amounts of repression by a population that is distinct from the majority in many ways. I don't think these rulers and managers and train runners have to be white, simply I don't think there are enough people in the native black population to staff all those roles competently and with the disposition to do so with enough of an iron fist to run the country.

Unclear. Is it because the leadership are Marxists that they don't have the state capacity to prevent rampant pillaging of powerlines? There have been Marxist societies - Stalinist Russia, or Mao's China, or Kim's Korea - that were capable of protecting state infrastructure and harshly punishing those who, without approval from the relevant political authorities, harmed it.

Is it because the leadership of SA are Marxists that they have a turbo-charged affirmative action system (called "Black Economic Empowerment") which crippled many major businesses and state enterprises? It's more LBJ "Great Society" than "all power to the proletariat."

Is the SA leadership's Marxism the reason that they appear to be functionally innumerate?

I don't know, and I have a hard time believing it's not a larger issue, of which culture/ideology is one aspect.

that were capable of protecting state infrastructure and harshly punishing those who, without approval from the relevant political authorities, harmed it.

So there was this one time I was at work, and a friend of mine arrives extremely late. No biggie, we're all IT dudes, and there was nothing urgent, but it was unlike him, so we ask him what happened, and he says: "well, here I was, sitting on the bench at the station, waiting for my usual train when I hear the announcement 'due to theft of the overhead power lines, all trains in the direction of <<city>> are cancelled'". It was already after communism though, so maybe it's beside your point.

Is it because the leadership of SA are Marxists that they have a turbo-charged affirmative action system (called "Black Economic Empowerment") which crippled many major businesses and state enterprises? It's more LBJ "Great Society" than "all power to the proletariat."

That's the same "Cultural Marxism does not exist / isn't Marxism" cope all the Marxists always use. The answer here is yes. Marxist oppressor-opressed analysis is what's responsible for affirmative action.

Is the SA leadership's Marxism the reason that they appear to be functionally innumerate?

That one might come down to post-modernism.