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 -
That would be a foolish way to read it.
You should value statues of Lee because you should value peace. You should value the idea that there is a limit to warfare and strife, that the sword can be sheathed, that people who have fought to the death can reconcile, that bloody civil war can in fact end. It can do this because the people fighting it did not perceive the conflict to be existential, and so at some point they were willing to stop. That is a rare and profoundly valuable virtue, and one that people should not treat with disdain.
You should value the idea of leaders who conduct themselves honorably, even for an evil cause. You should value this because no cause, no nation, no people, not even individuals are ever truly virtuous, as the line of good and evil runs through every human heart. You should value this because people following orders, even bad ones, and obeying what they see as honor and duty, even if woefully misguided, is what makes conflict survivable for a civilization. Fools mock the idea of "just following orders" because they've forgotten what it looks like when generals or the armies they lead don't. Fools mock the the idea of "honor" and "duty" as applied to those they see as villains, because they are stupid enough to believe that morality is a solved problem and that one can simply "do the right thing". Having a historical understanding that amounts to a Saturday morning cartoon, they presume that the moral equilibrium they have received from their present environment via an entirely passive osmosis is obviously and eternally correct.
If you believe in prioritizing the destruction of everything your opponents value, it's because you don't want to coexist with your opponents in any way. If you are unwilling to coexist with your opponents in any way, there is no way to make peace, as conflict becomes by necessity existential. It seems to me that most people advocating this sort of conflict have no conception of the horror they are asking for.
If your opponents and everything they value are evil, why should you *want( to coexist with them, unless you absolutely have to?
Which is certainly a problem if you lose such a conflict, but if a clear assessment of relative power indicates you're much, much more likely to win, how is your opponents ceasing to exist forever not a goal to be much desired, enough to be worth suffering serious losses to attain?
Nobody starts a war unless they are confident they can win. Yet, many lose. Humans are irrationally self-confident and overoptimistic. As the infamous Konkvistador said: "War is computation with tanks. War is truth revealing. As war proceeds uncertainty collapses."
Perhaps a perfectly rational being could take into account the meta-uncertainty, and only go to war when they were a thousand times sure they could win. But for mere humans, a willingness to coexist acts as a deontology to prevent you from making that kind of costly mistake.
More options
Context Copy link
You wouldn't. You're describing at how someone arrives at the mindset I'm describing. But of course, no large-scale, long-term stable collection of humans is actually evil in this sense, and those who come closest are notable by their commitment to the idea that large numbers of their neighbors are irredeemably evil.
"I am Ozymandias, King of Kings. Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair."
History is littered with societies thinking themselves invincible, only to be destroyed in conflict. Sometimes the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must, but sometimes the strong break their teeth on the "weak" they attempt to victimize.
Except, you can't be destroyed in conflict if there's nobody outside your group to be in conflict with. If you conquer and force to submit and fully assimilate to your group and its ways, or else destroy, the whole rest of humanity, then the entire future of humanity belongs to your group.
I think that not only are we here, but that in this case, "the strong" are indeed so powerful that they have better than even odds of pulling off the above-described world-domination. Again, if you subjugate and exterminate everybody until your group is the only one left, literally the whole of humanity, how is that not a "stable win"? And if you (IME correctly) assess that the odds are good that you can pull it off, then why not?
Queue the schisms.
Sure, but both sides of the schism are still your heirs/descendants…
At no point in this discussion have I used "group" to describe biological descendants, and ideological heredity is neither innate nor reliable. While ideologies can and do have descendants, no individual or group can be forced to either adopt or maintain adherence to an ideology.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So I think this is true. But some elements of what your opponents value have to be up as fair game. If we invade Germany and then as soon as we leave they go right back to building their military and killing Jews and invading Poland, then we haven't really won anything.
If you want your opponent to respect your loss but not wipe you out, you have to respect their victory and give up whatever the inciting issue was. Otherwise they haven't really won and you haven't really lost and you'll go round in circles again soon enough. So it isn't a victory merely a pause in the fighting.
KMC says the South lost the war but won the culture war, they got to venerate their heroes and push Jim Crow and other issues into the rebuilt Union. He doesn't accept the loss of the value that black people are not equal Americans. He wants to keep it. Given that, the culture war at least is not over. Essentially his claim is that re-absorbing the South was a poison pill. That slipped the values they were fighting for back into America at large even though they lost the war.
Given that why shouldn't his symbols be valid targets in the culture war? He hasn't surrendered. He still wants his values to triumph. But that means his values, his symbols, his beliefs have to be valid targets for his opponents still. So they aren't shooting him, they are tearing down his symbols. The war rages on in a new sphere. But it still does rage.
Your points are valid once the war is over and one side actually capitulates.
If your argument is that @KMC's position is incoherent because his premises invalidate the logic by which he claims support for his preferred outcome, I think you are straightforwardly correct. The problem, from my perspective, is that KMC is a white supremacist whose chosen narrative contains considerable dishonesty, and granting his premises without critique advances his cause at the expense of the vast majority of non-white-supremacists. I think people should not do that.
I think if you can invalidate someone's argument, even when you are granting their premises to be true, that is a pretty strong rebuttal of their position. Now I also don't believe many of his premises are true, but some of those are very "squishy" in that it's like poking holes in jelly, you get sticky fingers and the pile just oozes over the holes anyway.
Defining what it means to win the culture war, or whether or not the South was a poison pill or whether black people "should" be seen as 2nd class from the inception of the US despite the "All men are created equal" rhetoric is a large in scope argument which often relies on subjective opinions of morality and who did what in history which takes a lot of time to deconstruct.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ah! It is ok to purge an entire movement from public space and from history, unless said movement capitulates, which is defined as there not being any weirdos on obscure forums, who could be interpreted as promoting the movement's worst excesses. I will save your post, and keep it in mind for the future.
We're all obscure weirdos here fella, so if thats a defence of his post it also applies to mine. I have no power over those choosing to destroy statues.
Yes that was my point.
Power? No. Influence over people on the margins? You might be surprised.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Then why didn't they tear down the statues 50 years ago?
Tearing down the statues is not being done to hurt actual racists and white supremacists, or they would have been torn down 50 years ago. The fact that they are tearing them down now is evidence that they're not fighting back against the side that lost, but rather against their outgroup, who they can associate with the side that lost even when that's not actually true.
More options
Context Copy link
The south is not very likely to reinstate slavery or Jim Crow, however. Yankee values won about race and racism and the south surrendered, it just chose to venerate confederate generals who weren’t happy about losing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is some bullshit relativism. There is no honor in serving an evil cause. Although I suppose one can avoid heaping evil upon evil. It is really a perversion of honor and duty to use them for evil. Moral judgment applies to the master and falls on the servants, the tools by themselves have no moral valence.
People who just follow orders mistakenly think they can abdicate their moral responsibility. In voluntarily surrendering their humanity to act like a “good” cog, they ironically ensure that the machine’s work is the only true measure of their morality.
Perhaps, but not down the middle. If you refuse to discriminate between gradations of grey, you cannot condemn anything.
As if you get to define both honor and evil in order to serve your own purpose. If you don't think Lee was honorable, then your definition of honor is so selective as to be meaningless, and I suspect it really just boils to people you agree with. The same could be said of evil.
If there's anyone who is going around dehumanizing it's you. There are many reasons why someone would follow orders beyond voluntarily surrendering their humanity. The most obvious one being fear of punishment or reprisal, and it's so obvious I wonder how you could have omitted it from your perspective.
If the goodness of a cause is too subjective to judge people from, what makes honor any better a standard? The concept of honor also varies quite a lot from time to time and from place to place -- it's not like one can't construct a coherent definition of honor that does not include Lee's conduct.
More options
Context Copy link
I was disputing FC’s point that we should value leaders who conduct themselves “honorably”, even for an evil cause. If you want to make the case that the confederacy was not evil, that’s a different argument (and one I am less interested in).
There’s a semi-famous 18th century german general whose epitaph reads “Wählte Ungnade, wo Gehorsam keine Ehre brach’(‘Chose disgrace, when obedience brought no honor’. ) They aren’t the same thing.
Coercion is an excuse for doing evil, my problem is with the claim that following evil orders is worthy of praise/honorable/good.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
May I ask what your moral framework is based on? Are you religious? Deontological at least? Or is all this moral condemnation cast in the name of unmaximized utilons?
That's the basic argument against "just following orders" that he directly addressed. He wasn't talking about how it absolves anyone of moral responsibility, he was saying you might want to think twice before you wish for armies that don't follow orders.
Saying "we shouldn't purge the world of statues of honorable men fighting for the wrong cause" is not "refusing to discriminate between shades of grey".
Mostly utilitarian, but golden rule with some bells and whistles also works. As in: Do I want people to behave honorably when serving an evil master that is harming me and others? No, I want them to be as dishonorable as possible, and stab the guy in the back.
I don’t see the argument. How would the world have been worse off if Lee, and the rest of the confederacy, had decided that their cause and this war was a stupid, disgraceful affair?
He spoke generally, and I was responding to those claims. Such as:
I can give him this line every time the woke do something he doesn’t approve of.
strawmannish.
Well then, I'm sorry but I can't take your moral outrage seriously.
People serving an evil master behaving as dishonorable as possible will only rarely mean that they stab your enemy in the back and immediately surrender to you.
Armies not following orders don't do whatever the hell you want them to do, they do whatever the hell they want to do.
He spoke in the context of "You should value statues of Lee because...".
You could, if his argument is that no one should argue that the cause the Confederacy was fighting for was wrong, not that it's valid for southerners to keep some statues of Lee around.
No it's not. I don't know what they teach nowadays, but when I was growing up it was a pretty standard "Lesson One" from historians, that you shouldn't judge the past by today's standards, and it's pretty clear to me that this is what's happening here.
Either way I fail to see how this has anything to do with your "Perhaps, but not down the middle. If you refuse to discriminate between gradations of grey, you cannot condemn anything" argument.
Why? Is utilitarianism obviously wrong? Do you think morality is a solved problem?
Or am I not allowed to express moral outrage because I do not revere a wrathful god?
I ask of them only what I ask of everyone else: make sure you act morally first, and only later worry about legality, loyalty, obedience, patriotism, etc.
This is an entire sentence. It has nothing to do with statues. It is relativistic. It is either trivial: ‘there’s good and bad in everyone’. Or : It equates all inviduals, causes, and peoples as morally the same, half-good, half-evil (down the middle). I disagree strongly with that.
Red herring. Since you, FC, me and the woke, all agree that he served evil based on our, today’s, standards. We’re just haggling about honor within evil and statue moving costs etc. There is no need to dynamite our agreed-upon moral foundation with appeals to relativism and accusations of manicheism.
P.S.
No, wait! What the fuck am I saying, I don't believe that! In fact anyone pushing in that direction is likely to end up with some monstrous movement like communism, or Jonestown.
More options
Context Copy link
It's because when morality is not about certain things being inherently immoral, but about utils adding up, and you can't guarantee that your approach actually results in the highest amount of utils, your moral outrage fails on it's own terms.
It also just feels silly to get so angry at missing utils.
Yes, I too believe that the world would be better if everyone had exactly my morality, and put it above legality, loyalty, obedience, patriotism, and every other concern. This is literally never going to happen though, dismissing all other concerns is much more likely to result you being annihilated with no regrets by someone who think's they are good and you are evil.
And it is preceded by the paragraph starting with "You should value statues of Lee because you should value peace."
Even out of context - "No on one is perfect" is not relativistic.
I don't see anyone dynamiting any moral foundations.
So ? Utils represent human suffering. Your objection is like saying 'a million deaths is just a statistic'. Just because it's a number doesn't mean it has no moral and emotional value.
And you can? Why is utilitarianism alone held to this prohibitive standard?
There's a large overlap between moral systems, virtue ethics, deontology, golden rule, utilitarianism,etc . You don't need utils to come to the conclusion that slavery and mass murder is wrong.
Ok, great. Although I did not stipulate 'my exact morality'. They should use their morality before legality, obedience, etc; too.
You're throwing this out like it's supposed to mean anything, meanwhile millions of people died 'doing their duty' for an evil cause, including in the example under discussion, or a more infamous one, closer to my family history.
I said trivial, if this is all he meant.
Problem is you have no way of telling which action results in less suffering. For all we know slavery maximized utlity
No, but I don't go by utils.
Because that's the standard it sets for itself.
I does mean something. You are again assuming that "not following orders" will mean people doing what you want them to, rather then what they want to.
Sorry, I glossed over that. It's not trivial. Demanding perfection is a road to hell, and a lot of the absurdities we see today stems exactly from that impulse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're asking the question "what if this one specific army didn't follow orders in this one specific way". A general principle of "armies don't need to follow orders" won't result in that specific situation and nothing else.
It's like saying "what if the police didn't obey the law... in this one situation where it happened to be a good thing to frame a suspect". You can't have police who will only frame one single guilty suspect. You can only have police who mistreat suspects in general.
This is like saying you can't expect a soldier not to shoot his comrades when you order him to fire. People can follow more than one instruction at the time, they can do conditional clauses.
I don't think it's ever a good thing to frame a suspect. If necessary, they should just murder the guy off-duty, so there is no corruption of the justice system.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why? It seems clear the idea is not true -- both the woke and the Palestinians vs. Israelis demonstrate this. If when I'm in power I treat my defeated enemies magnanimously, and when they're in power they crush me under their boot indefinitely, then their victories will be lasting and permanent and mine will be precarious and fleeting.
If you cannot make peace with an enemy, you had better win. If you cannot make peace with any enemy, if every conflict you engage in inevitably becomes existential, if the mere fact that the other side is willing to fight you means they must be exterminated, you are already doomed.
Only if you eventually lose. If every conflict you engage in inevitably becomes existential, but you win them all, eventually you exterminate everyone else, and the whole world is yours.
More options
Context Copy link
If you can't make peace with an enemy, but your enemy has scruples, you don't need to win. If you lose he'll leave you alone to try again. If you lose that, he'll leave you alone for a third try. Repeat until you eventually win.
Or your enemy runs out of scruples, of course.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link