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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's being used as a rhetorical attack to discredit Jefferson and Poison the Well. "Jefferson was racist, ergo a bad person and all of his works are now discredited." It's not a truth finding expedition being made in good faith, but rhetorical culture war.
"Why won't my opponent concede when he knows I'm using rhetoric?" isn't really a fair question.
Except that Robinson's leftist wagon fort never applies the same standard to Marx, or Engels, or Che Guevara, or any other leftist revolutionary who ever expressed racist views. I find it regrettable that Rufo seemingly never made that point.
Robinson has said plenty of negative things about Marx and his ideas, which upset the folks at Jacobin. I didn't read his book so I don't know how much of his argument relies on "bad person ergo" but figured this trivia was worth pointing out
From the review, Robinson appears to have tarred Marx as an authoritarian (a position which Jacobin might not champion, but is willing to tolerate if it leads to a better world state), not as a supporter of racism, bigotry or anti-semitism (ideologies which Jacobin wouldn't support, even if they would bring socialism closer). Would have interesting to see him confront anti-Slavic and anti-Jewish sentiment pervading the writings of early socialists.
Googling I discovered that Robinson argues against Marx being an anti-semite, confirming that he only scours the history for prejudice, if it advances his ideology. If facts would bury his intellectual forefathers, they instead are buried.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Rufo knows that's a trap because, if pressed, Robinson would obviously disavow Marx's racism but merely say he "had some interesting ideas about labor relations" or something. Rufo, on the other hand, wants to defend some kind of constitutional originalism where the founding fathers were uniquely capable sages whose instructions must still be followed today.
I argue it'd be relatively easy to press him on this. Surely his ideological investment in Marxism goes further than that.
Does Rufo actually go that far? I'm not familiar with his work so I don't know.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe this is how things work in the culture war but I don't think the latter has to follow when you admit the former. I've seen plenty of wholehearted defenders of a philosophy say something to the effect of "X (founder of their favourite ideology) was a terrible person, now let's discuss what is still worthwhile about their ideas".
the purpose is to attack the myth; all of "his works" are part of the myth
attacking and destroying the hero is the point of this sort of rhetorical attack and admission
so, you either get the person to help you in destroying their myth/hero or you force them into a position where they defend something which is heretical which could destroy their life
this isn't genuine discussion or dialogue, it's rhetoric and argument and should treated as such
Okay, so it's theoretically possible for this to not poison the well or destroy the myth/hero which forms part of the identity the person you're talking to, now what?
if the point was to discuss their "still" worthwhile ideas, why didn't the discussion start there? because the destruction and poisoning the well is the point of this sort of comment
I concede you have a point. I can respond just as @Tollund_Man4 did that "destroying the myth behind a person doesn't discredit whatever lessons you might draw from their writings or actions" but I also recognize that people often adopt positions in a reflexive manner based on just vibes (I'm potentially vulnerable to doing this myself). If you accept that concern as real and wish to defend against it, you have to remain active at the meta-level where you're defending the mythology rather than defending the substantive arguments. And implicit at this level is that you can't break character and be transparent about what you're doing, because "I am defending Jefferson's legacy in order to shore up the vibes supporters he has" shatters the kayfabe. Defending the mythology also can be in tension with defending the substance.
We're all affected by vibes and the reason this attack is done at all is to communicate negative vibes and steer anyone not completely able to separate myth from underlying idea (i.e., everyone) will be affected by it. I do not remember the person who I first read a similar comment to yours, but he described normal people as not thinkers but "vibers," and I think that's a pretty good description and these tactics simply work. Arguing this is theoretically possible, especially in the above example, is such an unsatisfying reply because of this and gives cover to people who do it to destroy the founding myth and founding heroes. Is it theoretically possible? Perhaps, but not really in the real world which is why it's done and it's being done in the exact example being discussed.
If attacks on person didn't work, it wouldn't be the number 1 tactic everyone does to attack ideas even in communities like this where people still regularly do stuff like "Person X, known pedophile/racist/antisemite, _________."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't need to argue that it's theoretically possible to avoid destroying the myth, just that destroying the myth behind a person doesn't discredit whatever lessons you might draw from their writings or actions.
The mythology itself can be an obstacle to discussing someone's ideas. "I'm a follower of Jefferson because he was a great man" is no foundation, "I believe in the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence" is more substantial even if you admit the moral failings of the author.
It does which is why they're doing it. Theoretically, perhaps it's true that attacking the man behind the ideas doesn't necessarily affect those ideas, but it does to the vast majority of people and it's the case in the linked example. The purpose of getting someone to admit their hero/myth is flawed is because you're trying to signal to others WARNING: HERETIC and poison the well. If it didn't affect the idea, a person wouldn't lead off a discussion with "this guy is a racist, though, right?"
Because the point is to destroy the myth and taint its parts. It's to signal negative vibes to the normies that this guy should be approached with caution, if at all.
A man being a great man is the best foundation to follow him or be a follower. I sincerely do not understand what would be a better reason. Without men, ideas are irrelevant.
I'll grant that this is often a reason. I do think we have other genuine reasons of it not being an attempt to poison the well, I've brought it up before but philosophy professors will often start their attempt to impress the value of a thinker upon their students by admitting all the terrible and crazy things about them history has revealed.
When it comes to an adversarial discussion, you might be poisoning the well by referring to a thinker's past crimes, you might also just be seeing if your interlocutor holds any insane beliefs resulting from hero worship or ideological blindness. Ideally they come out of it having established their credibility as someone who will admit fault when he sees it but still give praise when he thinks it's due.
Depending where the debate is on the scale of rap battle to Oxford debate you might be able to trust the audience to make distinctions here.
A better reason would be that you follow his ideas because they work no? There are lots of great men of history that would be hard to follow in any political sense because their ideas are either inapplicable in the modern day or obviously terrible. Jefferson is remembered because the constitution he helped design worked well enough that we still consider his political thoughts relevant (in more than a purely historical sense).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is also judging someone based on today’s morality. Was Jefferson blameless in his generation? No. Was he bad in his generation? No. Jefferson was clearly bothered by the concept of slavery and even took some efforts to try to limit and eventually end the practice. He is very different compared to certain people like John Calhoun.
Moreover, Jefferson crafted one of the most important documents in human history and gave birth to some of the most important words uttered in human history (generally when people say things like that it is an exaggeration but in this case the Declaration of Independence is probably the most important document in the last 1,000 years).
That is, Jefferson was a great man. A flawed man. He was human; not a saint. But he was still great and trying to use modern sentiments to besmirch that greatness is unjust.
Funny enough, most people who complain about Jefferson only do so because of the profound words Jefferson wrote. MLK Jr would not have had half the success he had but for Americans treating the declaration of independence as sacred. Yet these half wits and talentless dweebs like Robinson feel they can be the moral superior to the greatness of Jefferson?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm sorry, but Rufo of all people doesn't get to complain about this. He is engaged in an explicit political project, to win the culture war. In fact, despite all the seething, that's what's attractive about him: he knows this. No way he walks into a debate with Robinson and doesn't get the game.
If his counter was inadequate that's on him.
That's a fair point. If he is going into a rhetorical knife fight, his failings are on him. No quarter asked or given, but my main point was about his 'ducking and weaving' when the argument isn't dialectical using logos.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link