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 -
The writeup is still in progress, but I want to try to at least communicate some portion of the insight in the meantime.
Let's leave aside "Red" and "Blue" as labels, and substitute "A" and "B". From Orwell's "politics and the English Language", here's an example of the same idea written written two different ways:
Let's call the first style "A" and the second style "B". Obviously the two are quite different, and Orwell, being a master of composition, has intentionally written the second to be bad and wrong. Let's ignore aesthetics completely, and not care at all about which is more pleasing to the eye or ear.
I think there's a significant and irreducible difference between the two formulations, and a way to try to begin describing it would be to say that "A" presents itself as on the inside looking out, and "B" presenting as from the outside looking in. I would say further that the former is better than the latter, because there is no "outside", and presenting as though one is "outside" is fundamentally dishonest. In this way, the passage shows that the way one talks about something reveals the way that one thinks about something, and that some ways of thinking are better than others.
Does that description make sense to you?
I agree that the former is clearly superior to the latter, but I confess that I don't know why.
The former is certainly closer to the soil; although we shouldn't forget all the nasty, poisonous things that lurk in the soil as well.
I'm more inclined to say that there is no inside. There is only outside. (I'm very influenced by Zizek and McGowan's psychoanalytic reading of Hegel on this point - there is nothing that escapes contradiction, not even God.)
On the most literal reading, this seems straightforwardly false. Otherwise how could we explain the possibility of lying, or the ability of authors to write convincing dialogue for characters who think differently from themselves?
At any rate, I'm happy to discuss these issues independently, but I'm not sure what all this has to do with the question of the equivalence between the contemporary far left and far right, or the question of equivalence between political ideologies in general. I have some guesses as to where it might be going, but it would probably be better to save that until you post the definitive account of your position.
Hmm. Let's try it this way.
A: I returned and saw under the sun...
B: Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion...
The former admits appropriate subjectivity: I saw frames the sentence as the author's personal experience, which you are implicitly invited to measure against your own. The later inappropriately claims objectivity: Objective consideration, with no mention of who is doing the observing, is the language of a textbook, presenting information to be ingested uncritically. It implies a comprehensive system of knowledge, of which this is one piece.
...Or I can make it even simpler, and hopefully divorced from any political or social connotations.
A: It seems obvious to me that...
B: Everyone knows that...
Both strongly assert a position. The latter bakes in an inherently inappropriate social claim to reinforce the point. You see that, right?
In this case, A is speaking from "inside" themself, about a perceived reality they recognize as outside them. B is speaking from "outside" themself, about a "reality" that almost certainly does not exist. It seems to me that there is nothing that "everyone knows", most especially because the phrase is usually deployed at someone who evidently doesn't know the thing in question.
Likewise:
A: "but time and chance happen to them all"
B: "but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account"
...Are not equivalent either. The former frames time and chance as something to be accepted. The latter frames them as something to be managed, if not outright overcome. But the whole point of the passage is that they are to a considerable extent unmanageable; the A version is highlighting this, and the B version is minimizing this, perhaps even denying it.
It seems to me that the A version presents itself as inside a box, the self, looking out at the world, while the B version presents itself as Systematized Knowledge, looking into a box, which is the world. That is what I mean by inside and outside. I'm further asserting that there is no Capital-S Systematized Capital-K Knowledge, though to really chase that point down will probably require a lot more drawing of definitions. Suffice to say, the implicit claim I'm pointing to is false.
Does that make more sense, whether you agree with it or not?
Lying is difficult, and simulating is likewise difficult. No one can do either perfectly, and we're talking here about conversation, not fiction. I'm asserting that how people argue, especially when they argue well and forcefully, reveals a lot about how they think.
Because the assertion that I am endorsing is that the appropriate way to group ideologies is not by position statements, which observably change with some frequency, but rather on core axioms and values, which do not. I've argued previously that the core of Enlightenment/Progressive/Left-wing thought is the axiom "we know how to solve all our problems", with the point being that it is a false axiom, and anyone who uses it is making the same fundamental error, regardless of what specifically they think the problems and solutions are. With the example above, I'm trying to show how that thought iterates out into even basic statements about observable reality, like "chance exists".
Are you sure that's a uniquely Enlightenment axiom? Isn't traditional Christianity quite opinionated on how we can solve all our problems? "For man's happiness consists essentially in his being united to the Uncreated Good, which is his last end."
Anyway, this strikes me as more of a statement of personal credence about the results of a given policy program, rather than a core philosophical axiom that we might expect to find wedded to one ideology over another.
There was and still is definitely an element of this in Marxism, the faith that the world revolution would usher in the end of history and the final utopia. Absolutely. But there are also Marxists who are critical of that tendency. It's a fortunate coincidence that I mentioned Zizek and McGowan in my last post, because they're both self-described Marxists who are critical of traditional eschatological Marxism. Zizek has transitioned over the years towards a position where he treats Marxism as more of a regulative ideal to strive for, rather than a single defined end state. McGowan critiques the traditional Marxist conception of a utopian social order free of contradictions because it fails to account for the lessons of Freud and Lacan about the fundamentally self-destructive nature of the human psyche. He describes his position as one of "permanent revolution" - yes we should strive for a socialist economic order, but he explicitly acknowledges that that won't be the end of our problems. There will always be new problems, new tensions, the need for new revolutions. If a Marxist thinks like this, is he no longer a Marxist? Well, he obviously doesn't become a traditional Red.
Do you think that white identitarians think they "know how to solve all our problems"? I've never really heard any of them talk in those terms. But if any of them do believe that, then they should obviously stop. There have been lots of (almost) 100% white societies throughout history and they all had lots of problems. White people have a long history of violently murdering each other. So it's just a simple historical fact that white nationalism can't solve every problem. I think that every intelligent white identitarian who has reflected on meta-politics is aware of this.
You can use almost any political ideology as an example. Let's take ancaps. Do ancaps think they know how to solve all our problems? It seems obvious to me that there could be some who do and some who don't. And they're all still ancaps. It wouldn't make sense to classify them any other way.
I'm not opposed to the idea of looking at political ideologies through the lens of common foundational commitments, if we can find the right ones, but "we know how to solve all our problems" just doesn't strike me as a good one. Dividing people based on that would lead us to put people with severely disparate ideologies into the same camp.
More options
Context Copy link
I won't comment upon this assertion except to point out that this was absolutely not what Hlynka was doing. Hlynka would just tell people they were lying about their positions, make up some of his own to attribute to them, and then strut off as if he hadn't just made a fool of himself.
His bullshit system of categorization wasn't leading him to some deeper insight others failed to understand, it was leading him to make stupid nonsensical posts where he attempted to call people out for failing to defend arguments they had never made.
Did you make a point against his IQ skepticism that he doesn't want to answer? Prepare to have him ask you how your point is supposed to invalidate colorblind meritocracy. Have you ever posted about meritocracy before? Doesn't matter if you haven't. Are you actually in favor of it? Fuck you, Hlynka can read your mind and knows you really aren't.
At no point have I argued that the behavior Hlynka engaged in that led to his banning was acceptable in this space. My assessment is that past a certain point he didn't care, and was happy to eat a ban if that was the price for expressing his contempt for the proliferation of what he considered fundamentally wrong and evil memes.
I'm discussing a long-standing point of debate that precedes the flameout.
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