site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29422 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Linking your real email adress to accounts commenting on outright white nationalist websites seems like an incredibly low IQ thing to do, and all the more weird for someone as obsessed with IQ as Hanania.

In recent years, he's been explicitly condemning the HBD right, even going on Emil Kirkegaard's blog to trash it to his face. I suspect Hanania probably understood that wignat politics was a dead end, but at the same time he couldn't pretend that HBD was false. So he tried to triangulate into a "moderate centrist" position, but apparently the ruling elite and its attack dogs are never far behind.

This will be an important test for the US right. The history of these doxxing events has shown that the right is all too happy to throw people under the bus for offending liberal sensibilities on issues like race. We'll see if this time is different.

It would be a fitting end for that line of thought to see Hanania completely ostracized. Left with nothing but a substack and a horde of disgruntled wignats in his comment section.

Wignat politics being a dead end always rings hollow when the ones who turn up their nose and sneer at it end up contorting themselves to speaking in riddles and code to not offend their overlords. Which is a complete conspiracy theory by the way. There are no overlords of course, Hanania just can't be allowed to speak his mind and has to hide his name or weave his truths with mainstream politics for the same reason the sun rises and sets every day. It's just the way of the world, right?

The zionist takeover of the conservative party happened decades ago. Men much better than Hanania were tossed out for saying much less than he did. He made his bed in the containment zone created for and by those men. His antics do nothing but rustle and agitate those already in that sphere. All this talk about him as if he matter at all is, from that standpoint, just inane. He would at best be the brightest snowflake in a dissident right snow globe, but he's not even that.

the right is all too happy to throw people under the bus for offending liberal sensibilities on issues like race

Have you considered that this is because the right also has certain sensibilities about race and gender?

Yes, but who is leading who is the question here. The oft-repeated remark that conservatives are just liberals of 20 years ago didn't spring up from nowhere.

I really don't think that mainstream conservatives have much continuity with the racial conservatives of old, although they have beliefs which are often politically incorrect(eg black culture is uniquely destructive) and a willingness to make alliances with closeted racists. It's probably partly true that conservative sentiments about gender are more influenced by where liberals were 20 years ago. But, conservatives do have their own principles on the matter which diverge from what liberals think.

This will be an important test for the US right. The history of these doxxing events has shown that the right is all too happy to throw people under the bus for offending liberal sensibilities on issues like race. We'll see if this time is different.

I don't think it should be. That dude that was working for Tucker as a writer might have been worth defending. Hanania? Not only do I not understand how he was ever taken seriously, dude's basically the personification of Hlynka's "alt-right progressive" meme. Also, he seems pretty happy throwing people under busses himself.

I don't know who Hlynka is, nor have I seen their meme. Care to link it?

@HlynkaCG is a long-time poster here, who has posited that what most people refer to as the "far right" or "alt-right" are better understood as offshoots of the left/progressive movement. For evidence, consider the history of the eugenics movement, the original party affiliation of the KKK, and progressive interest in Fascism and Communism prior to WWII, versus opposition to both from people like Lewis, Chesterton, Tolkien, etc.

people like Lewis, Chesterton, Tolkien, etc.

...Hobbes, Smith, Burke, Madison, Kipling...

Hobbes, Smith, Burke, Madison

Now this is downright anachronistic.

I don't think it is, there are distinct themes and lines of reasoning that can be followed from each to through to the next.

He is a regular poster here. He often makes these claims on these here pages.

Also, he seems pretty happy throwing people under busses himself.

This might be what does him in. He's been spending the better part of the recent past praising the liberal establishment and throwing people on the dissident right to the meatgrinder, even condemning them for racism.

In hindsight, it seems obvious he made a dash for respectability by opportunistically burning past bridges. Well, seen in that light, you could say this is karma in a sense. Who will now defend him after he did so much to alienate and even actively disparage those who used to read him?

throwing people on the dissident right to the meatgrinder, even condemning them for racism

I don’t think he did it as a ‘dash for respectability’, I think he did it because he has a genuine respect for power. And his views on racism are that a lot of it on the hard right isn’t motivated by measured consideration of the evidence but rather by pure tribal outgroup hatred for difference, by disgust in other words. This isn’t an original point - @DaseindustriesLtd made the same argument here very recently on a couple of occasions, for example when observing some German racism towards Turks. It certainly doesn’t make Hanania a ‘progressive’.

I don’t think he did it as a ‘dash for respectability’, I think he did it because he has a genuine respect for power.

They're the same picture.

It certainly doesn’t make Hanania a ‘progressive’.

Never claimed Hanania is a progressive. Surely you can do better than arguing against strawmen?

I don’t think he did it as a ‘dash for respectability’, I think he did it because he has a genuine respect for power

Same, same. Respectability is defined by those who have power and not by those who don't.

To be fair, those he threw to the wolves defending him would make him look worse to the people he wishes to be associated with. There is a reason why every election year both parties try to accuse the other of being supported by David Duke.

Maybe he lost the substack gig of having a loyal following of dissidents, but if he sacrificed perceived truth for wider reach, I doubt he cares about such a career path.

Hlynka’s meme is essentially that anyone on the right who doesn’t agree with the exact views of a gun-owning moral majority Reaganite hick in a flyover state circa 1987 is a secret “progressive”, so that isn’t a particularly useful distinction.

Or (mods), to put it more charitably, his is a very narrow, very particular, very recent definition that doesn’t encompass the vast majority of the rightist / conservative tradition in the West since the French Revolution.

Hlynka’s meme is essentially that anyone on the right who doesn’t agree with the exact views of a gun-owning moral majority Reaganite hick in a flyover state circa 1987 is a secret “progressive”

No, my claim is that there is a readily identifiable intellectual/philosophical tradition that starts with writers like Hobbes and Montaigne during the Protestant Reformation, progresses through thinkers like Smith, Madison, and Burke to become the "One Nation" (Tory), Abolitionist, and Republican movements of the 19th Century, which were then carried into the 20th by writers like Kipling, Lewis and Tolkien.

Furthermore, I maintain that this tradition exists distinctly from (and often in opposition to) the more progressive "Rousseauean" tradition from which the [current year] secular academic memeplex derives.

in other words the left-right spectrum is best understood as a religious schism within the European Enlightenment, and that left codes as intellectual not because they possess any great intellect, but because they were able to hollow out the institution of academia and wear it as a skinsuit.

If I were more like yourself and a few others on this forum I might have some comments why you in particular would want to misrepresent my views, but Im not, and I'm not going to make that comment because when you're born outside the Matrix you know in that the steak aint real.

Lewis and Tolkien (&Kipling?) certainly did not approve of any republican movements. And unless I misremember, Lewis is on record as saying he believed that socialism was the most Christian economic policy though he himself disliked it intensely. In general many of the English figures on that list were deeply dubious about American culture.

What everyone keeps trying to point out is that you have an incredibly specific interpretation of all those figures that is very distinctively postwar American.

There is indeed a vague tradition of pessimistic human-fallibility conservatism that is often opposed by a utopian human-perfectibility tradition. But they’re fuzzy, interbred and often linked with other elements. They are certainly not distinct enough for “only I / my tribe carry the true flame, and the rest of you are irredeemably corrupted by progressivism” style dismissals. They are also not quite the same as the progressive/conservative distinction.

left codes as intellectual not because they possess any great intellect, but because they were able to hollow out the institution of academia and wear it as a skinsuit.

Yes, I agree.

EDIT: plus the abolition movement was mostly Methodists and quakers (or utopian leftists) and Hobbes is best know as the great defender of absolute monarchy.

And unless I misremember, Lewis is on record as saying he believed that socialism was the most Christian economic policy though he himself disliked it intensely.

Unless I'm misremembering he talks about the political system Christianity aims for in Mere Christianity, and says that it would contain elements of conservatism, socialism, liberalism etc while resembling none of these as a whole.

No, you’re right. I apologise, it’s been a while. My only point is that these people do not fit into a nice beat tradition where they are build on each other.

Lewis and Tolkien (&Kipling?) certainly did not approve of any republican movements.

approving of a movement is not the same thing as being part of a movement or "a product" of it.

In fact, that's one of, if not the core, points of disagreement. Whether Stormfronters and SJWs like each other has zero bearing on whether or not they are they are drinking from the same well or using the same rhetoric. The old "Stormfront or SJW" question is a meme for a reason.

EDIT: plus the abolition movement was mostly Methodists and quakers (or utopian leftists) and Hobbes is best know as the great defender of absolute monarchy.

19th century Quakers were neither left-wing nor particularly utopian, likewise while Hobbes is memed as an absolute monarchist he was perhaps one of the most ardent individualists of his time precisely because his whole schtick is that 'agency ultimately resides with the individual.

That the mark of a true king is that men choose to follow him of their own volition

approving of a movement is not the same thing as being part of a movement or "a product" of it.

In fact, that's one of, if not the core, points of disagreement. Whether Stormfronters and SJWs like each other has zero bearing on whether or not they are they are drinking from the same well or using the same rhetoric. The old "Stormfront or SJW" question is a meme for a reason.

You’re clearly not wrong (horseshoe theory exists for a reason) but unless you can back up your intuitions about what movements people belong to then you’re left with either a very superficial analysis or visceral feelings of kinship/dislike. It seems rather similar to the way that the left decides certain figures or groups are progressive/fascist /colonial not because of anything they say or do but by squinting until they see a certain resemblance and ignoring whatever doesn’t fit. Because it’s in the eye of the beholder it’s hard to debate usefully.

More importantly to my mind, it ignores the role that circumstances play. As @FCfromSSC says, religious tolerance means a very different thing in a 99% Protestant country vs a 50/50 prot/catch country versus a 30% Christian, 30% atheist, 30% Muslim country, say. If you hold exactly the same political beliefs in these different places the results will be wildly divergent.

I feel like I've been pretty open about and consistant in my theory that there is a spectrum of philosophies between Rousseau on the left and Hobbes on the right.

I feel like you're trying to pull a "national socialism isn't actually socialism" or "real communism has never been tried" type card rather than acknowledge the argument being made.

What I struggle with is seeing how you get from

there is a spectrum of philosophies between Rousseau on the left and Hobbes on the right

to

when you're born outside the Matrix you know the steak aint real

From where I’m standing there are many, many strands of conservatism. Pro trade-Union, anti trade-union; pro free-speech, pro obscenity laws; pro planned economy, pro free trade, pro protectionism; conceiving of the nation as a land and the people of that land, conceiving of the nation as a creed or economic zone; pro monarchy and nobility, pro parliament; so on and so on, and that’s just British conservatism, let alone French, German, or American.

To boil these down into a post-Enlightenment Rousseau vs Hobbes schism is already pretty subjective and lossy, but I can get where you’re coming from and we can debate to some extent.

Where you do lose me is when you jump from that to “all of you are traitors to the movement that you claim to belong to, and you’re too far gone to see it. It doesn’t matter what tradition you think you’re part of, I know what you are.” Not only is it frankly arrogant, it precludes all possibility of meaningful debate. You are the wise sage who knows how shit is, and your interlocutors are either errant sheep in need of guidance or secret liberals.

If you’ll forgive me for bringing stuff up from another thread:

The liberal asks "what's the point of defending yourself (or others) if it lands you in prison?" and the conservative replies "to defend yourself". It really is that simple.

I get that you’re trying to make a point about inferential distance here, but it’s an inferential distance between you and the person you’re talking to, not between Real Conservatives and Fake Conservatives.

You’re an interesting person and I would like to debate with you more, but at the same time I and mine have been conservative for generations and it’s very frustrating to be lectured by somebody from another continent about what that means, even indirectly. Hence this rather vehement reply.

More comments

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