site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 28, 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.

10
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

An NPC is a person essentially lacking in higher reasoning abilities who blindly accepts whatever propaganda they are expected to swallow and unquestioningly follows the herd on any political issue, fashion trend or aesthetic question. If they have ever had an independent thought, it was a long time ago, and the experience was so frightening that they are determined it shall never happen again.

They are rarely actively stupid, but have a paralysing fear of being seen to be nonconformist or being exposed as more stupid or uninformed than they present themselves to be (you will rarely encounter an NPC pleading ignorance on a political question), and hence are very keen to "read the room" and determine what the "consensus" is on any given issue as quickly as possible. Being seen to be "correct" and "one of the good ones" is far more important than determining the truth of a given issue. Indeed, it's not obvious that NPCs can even understand the distinction between "the truth" and "the (local/expert) consensus".

Because they acquired the opinions they hold through osmosis and social conformity, they have only a surface-level understanding of any given political issue. Hence, arguing with them is usually pointless, as attempting to push or challenge them on any position they claim to hold will quickly devolve into accusations of bad faith or attempts to shame or dismiss the interlocutor (as the NPC would rather accuse others of being racist or similar than risk being exposed as an intellectual lightweight or confront the possibility that the "expert" "consensus" on some issue might be mistaken or even knowingly deceptive). The only way they can be persuaded to change their minds is to change the minds of the people around them and/or to change the narrative being promoted by the powers that be. This also makes it extremely easy for them to adapt to sudden changes in the prevailing narrative: unlike a person who arrives at their opinions through debate, reasoning and reflection, they don't feel the sting of cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy when they change their tune. They can move smoothly from war with Eurasia to war with Eastasia without a second thought.

Their surface-level understanding of politics and middling intelligence leads them to be very heavily dependent on political slogans, thought-terminating clichés and deepities to shore up the deficiencies and cognitive dissonance inherent in their worldview. In this and several other regards, the term is functionally interchangeable with "duckspeaker", coined by Orwell in 1984, meaning a person who quacks like a duck, reciting political orthodoxy mechanically without any intervention from the higher brain functions: "it was not the man's brain that was speaking, it was his larynx."

In short, someone whose opinions and tastes are memetically absorbed, and who thinks in memes instead of reason?

I hadn't really thought of it that way, but that's certainly one way of looking at it.

This is probably the best answer so far.

The "off-the-cuff" remark by the OP implied to me some concern for brevity.

Brevity has never been my specialty, I'll admit.

Thank you. Certainly the most long-winded, at any rate. I was a little embarrassed after posting my answer to scroll down and see everyone else had answered the prompt in two or three sentences.