site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   25097 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 25, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

For me, the idea of theAlt Right kinda blurred together with NRX via the SSC comments section and the various articles playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon with various Rationalists and various flavors of White Supremacism / Nationalism / HBD / whatever. The key difference was established by Richard Spencer doing the Nazi salutes toward Trump, whereas NRX tended to treat Nazis as merely the flavor of totalitarian Leftism that lost the war. So the alt right I guess felt like it was discount Reaction meant to appeal to people less likely to read Moldbug and more likely to hang out on 4chan.

Maybe my memory is faulty, but I remember all this being established before Hillery Clinton and Richard Spencer elevated it to national attention. I distinctly remember posting on Facebook after the Unite the Right incident that I was surprised to learn there were apparently actual Neonazi slogans and styles involved, because of the Boy Who Cried Wolf effect getting me use to "Nazi" basically meaning "someone I hate", and having associated the Alt Right more with the kind of talk from SSC commenters than Richard Spencer.

There were always (well, since the war) ‘Neo-Nazis’, think The Believer with Gosling in 2001. Online neonazi communities had existed since the first wave of internet communities emerged in the late 80s and early 90s. But it was a pretty low status thing, a lot of ex-cons, blue collar or underclass whites. Heavy association with KKK larpers, prison and drug gangs. There were always some more intellectual members, some academics especially those associated with Holocaust denial, but it was overall pretty lowbrow.

And the thing about that ‘movement’ is that it still exists. So what happened in Charlottesville and elsewhere is that no matter how hard the Richard Spencer types try, the meth addict ex-cons with arms, neck and sometimes face covered with swastika tattoos are going to show up. And of course the press is happy to photograph them when they do.

Thus the obsession with ‘optics’. The problem is that they’ve so bought into the ‘no enemies to the right’ meme and unironic Hitler shitposting on DR Twitter that they can’t actually police these people without thinking they’re ‘cucks’, so they’ve largely abandoned real life events now, other than some vaguely associated with the Dimes Square/RedScare/BAP scene.

Regarding your last period, I agree, and I think it is noteworthy to say that the "no enemies to the Right" works way less for the Right than the Marcusian "no enemies to the Left" works for the Left. No amount of red terrorism, entrenching with Stalinism and Maoism, online furry and trans communities and femcel feminism has been enough to damage the left-brand among the western upper-class.

At least in the Anglosphere, and excepting the relatively minor Weather Underground type stuff in the 70s, there hasn’t really been a major wave of far left terrorism in over a century. No Anglo country has ever come even remotely close to falling to full socialism, the closest was probably the US in the early 30s and the UK in 1926, and both of those weren’t actually close at all. In parts of Eastern Europe associating with Soviet / ML aesthetics is low status even among progressive liberal elites, but they’re a lot closer to that history.

Of course, that same distance also applies to the radical right, but I think there’s almost an inherent understanding that the reactionary message is more compelling to much of the population (especially in a diversifying society) than the socialist message - and that’s true on both sides. There’s a reason no rich countries ever fell to socialism except for East Germany and Czecheslovakia, and in both those cases it happened at the end of the barrel of a Soviet gun.

No Anglo country has ever come even remotely close to falling to full socialism, the closest was probably the US in the early 30s and the UK in 1926, and both of those weren’t actually close at all.

The UK elected a socialist government in 1945. The Atlee government nationalised about 20% of the economy, and had plans for further nationalisations if they had won more elections. They were voted out because they didn't make abolishing wartime food rationing a priority - it isn't entirely clear if this was an ideologically-driven choice, but modern leftist lore is that food rationing was an accidental socialist success and that poor ate better under rationing (and the associated price controls).

That seems unlikely, given the abolition of food rationing was a very popular and core part of the Conservative campaign strategy in 1951, along with the reversal of unpopular nationalizations like haulage and buses.

2020 definitely felt close to a Revolution in America and had plenty of left wing terrorism. The Cathedral seemed to have bought into cultural Marxism at all levels. While we weren’t likely to go full economical Marxism it did seem a form of it was in full control. There were no gulags but dissent meant unemployment and deplatforming.

The only thing that seemed to have held at the time is America has different power centers. The electoral college maintains rural governing advantages both in the Senate and the Supreme Court takeover. Then Musks saved the media and opened up a platform. If America had a slightly more centralized political power it seems to me that the Marxists could have completed the conquest of the Capital (Russia for instance was always authoritarian and ran thru Moscow).

COVID was quite minor. If we had a real crisis I’m not sure if the other power basis would be able to counter.

Of course, that same distance also applies to the radical right, but I think there’s almost an inherent understanding that the reactionary message is more compelling to much of the population (especially in a diversifying society) than the socialist message - and that’s true on both sides.

Obviously history tells us a lot about the kinds of dictatorships that pop up in wealthy countries, but can you expound on this point? Are you saying that the left gets away with ‘no enemies to the left’ because the elites know there isn’t about to be a commie regime and so aren’t scared off by Unironic Marxists?

Yes, I think that’s true. I also think the experience electing conservative populists in the developed world suggests the people are drawn more to that messaging than leftist populism - Trump became President, Bernie couldn’t even beat Hillary in the primary. Corbyn bombed with the public, who mostly hated him by the time he was on his second election. Melenchon didn’t go anywhere in France. Leftist populists do better in poor countries, principally in Latin America.

Or rather, the steps for a reactionary populist coming to power in the US - if you’re a progressive elite - look something like Tucker Carlson winning a presidential (or maybe just being the trusted advisor to someone more competent than Trump who does), the GOP controlling both chambers (happened in Trump’s first term) and a conservative majority on SCOTUS (currently extant). Sure maybe the deep state still stops him, and obviously we know Carlson’s not a fascist really, but from their perspective that’s a risk.

The steps for an actual honest to god socialist coming to power in the US involve what, the total implosion of both existing parties and a nationwide movement of such strength that it could rewrite the constitution, pack the court and reshape American political economy? It seems unlikely, to say the least.

Or rather, the steps for a reactionary populist coming to power in the US - if you’re a progressive elite - look something like Tucker Carlson winning a presidential (or maybe just being the trusted advisor to someone more competent than Trump who does), the GOP controlling both chambers (happened in Trump’s first term) and a conservative majority on SCOTUS (currently extant). Sure maybe the deep state still stops him, and obviously we know Carlson’s not a fascist really, but from their perspective that’s a risk.

Or maybe just Trump being more interested in tweeting than governing while his more-capable advisors run the country. I think we're the right majordomo away from that scenario becoming reality in early 2025.

Trump doesn’t have the humility. Can’t see it happening unless it’s the VP and Trump dies or resigns.

I don't think his ego is tied to actually exercising power, he'd be more than content to let Desantis or whoever actually run the country as long as he got credit.

Bernie couldn’t even beat Hillary in the primary

We'll never know if he could've beaten her, as the Hillary-funded DNC fixed that race.

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