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 -
Thanks, I appreciate that.
I usually ping you when I do. I still think you and the others defend the carrying out of immoral orders, even though you don’t think they’re immoral. The strawman accusation comes across as an attempt at controlling and censoring my interpretation of your beliefs. You can always refute and dispute (like I flatly stated to you recently : “I didn’t say that”). Half of all discussions are just two people trying to reconcile their interpretation of the other’s position. Don’t ask me to blindly accept your perspective on your beliefs, like a sacred garden you have dominion over.
That’s up to you, it’s all good, at your service.
Looks like you’re claiming the unassailable rock of the skeptic-pessimist so you can easily criticize without ever having to defend.
I like machiavelli, I like the split, I don’t buy that he was ironic and it was meant as an indictment of the prince. Taking one variable away is always a useful way of looking at the world.
But it seems to me the kind of people lampooned in the OP have taken his thought experiment too seriously, and consider themselves free to always act expediently, and relegate the question of what is right to their inner conscience. Sola fide, if you will.
I was thinking of jumping in, when you originally asked FC the question. I refrained, because I was curious how much we are on the same page, and didn't want to prime him, but now that I see we agree quite a lot on this, I think I can confidently say, you're missing the point.
The phenomenon you're describing is real, and it's quite common for people to take this sort of defensive position, but it's not what's happening here. The point isn't to say "democracy bad, theocracy good" or the other way around, or even to poke at each of them while remaining safe behind non committal. The point is that it's not about the system, it's about Asabiyyah. Even some Enlightenment Liberals understood that, or at least that's how I understand the quote about everlasting vigilance and freedom.
I don't think democracy, in itself, will help you maintain Asabiyyah any more than theocracy will, or vice versa.
What is asabyiah but ‘group loyalty’? Where the interest of the individual and that of those outside the group disappears for the collective good of for instance, the nation. Where the prole and the industrialist, the jew and the catholic, stick together because they’re italians first, right or wrong. It’s collectivistic and faschistic. I don’t mean it as an insult, but I don’t agree with it. What happens if the group decides individual freedoms are unnecessary, or even that a minority has to die for the good of the nation? So I remain vigilant against asabiyah too. I guess my group loyalty is to ‘the good’, which no doubt comprises many, but not all, italians.
I mean, I don’t know what asabiya means to you, but it seems to be related to the ‘hard men good times’ concept, which I also don’t subscribe to. The highest asabiya societies (tribal, nomadic, clannish) are not places I want to live in, and also, in the modern world, militarily incredibly weak. The bonds between people in primitive societies may appear stronger than in our ‘atomistic societies’, but they are still far more violent with each other. They may have ‘coherent values’ in the sense that they have never asked themselves which philosophy they subscribe to, but they are more than capable of bashing each other’s heads in over the parochial, stupid stuff.
"Group loyalty" will do in a pinch, but I like to use the Arabic word, as it's exotic origin allow it to be somewhat more expansive, as non-Arabs can't parse the word. "A group's animating spirit" is what I'd call it, and yeah I know it's pretty vague for a definition. I disagree it's fascistic, unless you believe committing to any group is inherently fascistic. Liberal democracies need asabiyyah too, and in fact witnessing American asabiyayah in action was a bit of a culture shock moment for me, a cynical post-communist Easterner. It's fair enough if you want no part in it, I'm not here to convert you, and I used to be a hardcore individualist myself, so I can imagine where you're coming from, but hopefully the explanation will help you understand where we're coming from as well (and not paint us as reactionary theocratic monarchists).
And yet, unlike us, they're scheduled to inherit the Earth, by the mere act of showing up.
Is supporting Ukraine asabiyah-yayayay?
But convert me to what? You don't have an ideology, or a plan, besides "shit happens, the wheel of fortune turns, you can't control humans by rules or systems of rules, but hey people should stick together".
Not likely. If prognosticating that far into the future even makes any sense, my money is on some pro-natalist modernist offshoot.
It's what you need asabiyyah for.
Unironically a better plan than anything any ideology I used to follow could come up with. Also when you act this way, I wonder if FC's apology wasn't unwarranted.
Sounds like a good deal to me, since any such offshoot seems more likely to come from people I'm aligned with, than any liberal group.
More options
Context Copy link
Kinda, but for European unity. Not as effectively as it could be, but it's there.
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