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 odd spread of opinion on the motte in either incarnation has been a puzzlement for both posters and mods alike for years, to the point where, imho, the mods give far too much leniency toward left-aligned posters in an attempt to foster a more 'even' debate forum. A laudable goal, I suppose, but not without it's unintended consequences.
Again, imho.
How the motte as a whole has developed hasn't been a surprise to me. At all.
Please allow me to explain my point of view.
Also, please excuse my generalizations, as I'm going for brevity, and relying primarily on my personal experiences.
I've been around a time or two. Long enough to see how forums develop, primarily in the fandom arena. Fandoms as a whole tend to lean left. Often, most fandom forums will also include 'off topic' areas that allow for political discussion.
While you could likely quibble with the ratio, I think it's fair to say that the most vociferous voices in these off-topic forums are going to lean heavily left. This creates a board culture that slowly dominates more and more, accelerating depending on how the spread of moderators and their personal opinions go.
This creates a specific argument culture - the majority of posters are left aligned, posting frequently, and have a plethora of free time to do so. If any right-aligned posters decide to wade into that pool, they're going to be faced with large opposition - gish galloping, low-level harassment in the form of having to deal with multiple posters attacking their view without pause, and so on. This creates stress, which can result in bad behavior(despite their opposition never being called out on it), often resulting in mod action, which creates a feed-back loop of self-satisfaction for the left-aligned posters and mods. This creates a perceived trend - right-aligned posters cannot debate or argue their points, hence their ideas are not good, and so on. A chilling effect occurs, as right-aligned posters realize the juice isn't worth the squeeze, the environment is hostile, and the mods - supposedly neutral arbitrators - will not be on their side.
So. This reinforces a perceived board culture, and what few right-aligned posters that debate such things will typical be extreme outliers, as they've been hardened by experience and can handle operating in a hostile environment.
However, a curious thing can occur. Off-shoot forums can develop, much smaller, taking population from the larger as a whole yet not having the numbers or involvement. Off-topic forums are put in place, including, yes, politics.
And a different environment emerges. When the playing ground is made even, suddenly it's the left-aligned posters acting badly because they're no longer operating in an environment they're familiar with. One on one, they can no longer rely on gish-galloping or numbers, and their opponents are well-experienced handling rapid-paced one-on-one debates(they have to be, to survive this long). Suddenly, the shoe is on the other foot - and the resultant behavior is so explicitly bad, even if the mods would normally be left-aligned, the size of the forum can't hide the behavior. It's clear, explicit, gains attention, and the mods have to play by the stated rules whether they want to or not.
Such off-topic areas are often shut down in quick order, likely due to all the mod-actions that result from it. I suspect this is due to all the left-aligned posters constantly abusing reports in the background, resulting in an over-sized headache the mods don't want to have to deal with, but this is pure suspicion on my part, lacking in any explicit evidence.
The motte exists in it's current forum because it's a level playing field, rigorously enforced. When their is conflict with the mod's decisions as a whole, it's often in the form of special treatment toward the left-aligned posters as a whole, but the mods have limited choices. The wider internet as a whole has inculcated a specific attitude in most left-aligned posters that does not lend itself toward even debate. They exist in an environment that encourages gish-galloping, low-level harassment, and confidence that the mods will take their side in most matters. They're used to low-level chilling effects and love-bombing in the form of most posters taking their side.
You say the motte is more 'right-aligned'. It is, likely. From the perspective of most left-aligned posters that wander in, because they're used to a radically different debate environment, populated by posters with similar opinions, where their perspective is rarely challenged, and where ideas in opposition to their own are rarely presented in a cogent fashion(and when they are, there's no guarantee it will remain).
The motte as it stands is the result of evolutionary pressure focused on political debate exerted on the wider internet as a whole and this forum in specific. Factors elsewhere do not exist here. This is a strange country, with different rules and pressures.
If you want a more neutral forum, find better left-aligned posters that can operate with those rules and pressures. Otherwise, don't be surprised when they decide to instead debate and argue in places where they can flourish.
This is an understatement.
Themotte is clearly right-leaning, it is not just that it's right-leaning compared to reddit or something. Posts of similar quality will get more upvotes if they're right-leaning, and the median comment is right-leaning.
(And lest you think I'm one of the left wing posters, as you described it, I assure you, I'm not.)
More options
Context Copy link
Unfortunately the OP deleted his comment. But I think what you say is largely true. Especially about the course that almost every other forum takes- I've seen it on RPG and boardgame forums, on fan fiction forums, on writing and literary forums, even (to a lesser degree) on tech forums. Some of the places I hang out at which are ostensibly "apolitical" have threads explicitly about "How can we support Biden in the election?" You can imagine what would happen if someone started a thread about how to support Trump.
I am "left-aligned" but this place feels like one of the few places left on the Internet where I'm still a liberal. Anywhere else, if I express my actual (classically liberal, or as the choads on those forums would mockingly say, "cLASSiCly LIbErAl!!!") views, I am immediately tagged as a right-winger. This used to make me say "Wtf?" but now I just accept that I am politically homeless and will be the first up against the wall.
(But really, it just enrages me, when I can still muster such feelings, that believing in colorblind meritocracy, free speech, presumption of innocence, biological reality, "my rules, applied fairly," etc., is now coded as "right-wing.")
I am in the same boat. On here, I am one of the most liberal posters. On Reddit, I would be mis-perceived as some sort of fascist by many people just because I think that racial groups differ in average intelligence (although I don't support discriminating against people because of it) and I don't want to be forced to use trans people's preferred pronouns (although I am completely fine with trans people being trans).
When I read stuff on here, I find myself annoyed by all the authoritarian social conservatives. When I go to Reddit, I find myself annoyed by the wokes.
Increasingly, the only political discussion forums online that I really enjoy are ones where people frequently make fun of, or at least criticize, both the left and the right.
More options
Context Copy link
Because no one believes you. Whatever you, personally, believe, it all stinks of embarassed conservatism. People make fun of self-identified "classical liberals" because the label has been spoiled by bigots hiding behind a mask of libertarianism (libertarianism that for some reason only seems to extend as far as their own preferences). I like meritocracy too, but I've met too many people for whom 'meritocracy' means never having to think about how society allocates opportunities.
I could go on, but I'm on my phone and that makes composition awkward, so I'll leave it at this: I find this comment darkly hilarious because the kind of people who populate the Motte are exactly the reason you are treated to a presumption of bad faith.
Why can't conservatives be 'classical liberals'. If you look up a list of historical classical liberals it's people like Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Ronald Coase. People like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were considered neoliberals. They were and are considered conservatives as well!
People usually call themselves "classical liberals" because they pointedly want to distinguish themselves from social conservatives. What I am saying is that many/most (though not all) such people are just garden variety conservatives who are embarassed by their own socially conservative views and/or the association with other conservatives, so they come up with stories to tell themselves (and others) how the party left them behind or the SJWs forced their hand or something similar, the point of which is say "I am not really a conservative."
So what would you consider a classical liberal that is neither a conservative, nor a woke progressive?
That would depend on the actual content of their beliefs, since someone calling themselves that could be almost anything from a center left neoliberal to a blue tribe conservative to white supremacist who isn't quite ready to take off the mask.
Statistically, my money is still on conservative in denial.
That's not what I'm asking. You shouldn't have to invoke other people to answer the question of what classical liberalism is according to you.
I apologize; I misinterpreted the question.
I don't think it's a very useful question (or at least not one I have a useful answer for), because I don't use the term except in reference to people who self-describe as such. You can look back to late 18th/early 19th century liberals, but that's a political context that's almost unrecognizable to today. I guess if you want my short answer: classical liberalism properly refers to a historical political tradition which has been succeeded by various offspring.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There was a meme originating during Gamergate about "being thrown into the pit with the rest of us". This is how the throwing is accomplished -- anyone who doesn't sign on with the progressive program in its entirety is branded a closet conservative.
Except that's manifestly untrue. The center left and far left squabble incessantly without the former being forced out. Some gamers have a meltdown because some gaming journalists called them sexist isn't being thrown in a pit, but it is sort of telling.
If you can joke about it, and people get the joke, maybe you should reconsider your priors for 'manifestly untrue'.
Why? As I said, the normie libs continues to exist and, indeed, to dominate. (Though tbh I'd be hard pressed to describe early 2010s gaming communities as socially liberal as opposed to merely disdainful of religious conservatives for being critical of gaming)
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
This is entirely a dilemma of the Left's own making when they chucked liberal principles and meritocracy aside and left various flavors of the Right to make those appeals. I get that there are legit criticisms of those concepts, some of which resonate even with me. And yet I really thought "racial quotas in every field" was something that would have been rejected by my estwhile peers; a strawman from right-wing media to be scoffed at, not enthusiastically endorsed. And sure, some would argue that not all leftists would support those endeavors if they were truly aware of the extent of them, but they sure do have a habit of digging their heels in if the subject is brought up.
After prematurely evacuating that hill and leaving it to the savages, you're a little suspicious that 'classical liberalism' is being contamined by a bit of white identiarianism? With all due respect: I hope that's some really tough shit the Left has to chew on for a long time. I'm not a WN by any measure, but there's no way we were going to have this collectivist-tinted racialized 'discourse' without that appearing on the menu. They deserve their shot.
Maybe that meme contamination is what will ultimately kiill 'liberalism'. The ick factor. Or maybe one day people will get sick of the progressive rule of the day when it has nothing to show for its actions, and thing start snapping hard in some other direction.
More options
Context Copy link
I won't say you're wrong that this is how many of my "fellow liberals" think. You are wrong if you are accusing me of actually being an "embarrassed conservative" who actually believes in my heart of hearts that white men rule by divine/genetic right and I'm just pretending to believe in classical liberal values because they flatter me.
As for other Motters, I won't speak for anyone else, but from what I have seen, the people who claim to be liberals really are; the white nationalists or white nationalist-adjacent don't claim liberalism. I can think of a couple of regulars who've claimed they used to be liberals ("before they got mugged by reality" as one person put it) - I am not sure if someone getting blackpilled puts the lie to classical liberalism.
I am not trying to accuse you of anything. I am telling you why this political narrative is not taken seriously.
The people I am describing are not white nationalists (they are frequently racist, but not ideologically so). They are embarassed conservatives. I use that turn of phrase for a reason - they are people who like to think of themselves as liberal even though their political priorities and sensibilities are overwhelmingly right-wing. I know no shortage of people like this in real life by dint of the fact that I used to be one, and the almost universal pattern was that when push came to shove they'd come down on the conservative side of an issue. Sometimes this was just lack of perspective - they couldn't conceive of how a gay man or a black woman might have a different experience with - but often it was just disregard.
I think you're just exhibiting the traits I am protesting. So if I have to wear the "right-wing" label if I continue to believe things that made me a liberal in the 80s and 90s, then sure, I guess I'll have to wear that label before I will accept the progressive redefinition of "liberal."
I don't know what to tell you, man. If your political beliefs really crystallized in the 90s, you're going to find the valence of many of your beliefs sliding right (or being reduced to rhetoric rather than policy, or just losing salience). It doesn't necessarily make you right wing relative to the general population, but it probably makes you more right wing than you used to be. That's not some semantic sleight of hand on the part of the modern progressive movement; that's a normal aspect of how politics change. I'm more left-wing/less conservative than I used to be, partly because my views changed, but in large part because things I still believe became less conservative.
And that is apart from how certain phrases can serve as political euphemisms that convey a meaning quite distinct from their literal one.
I feel like there are a few core concepts to liberalism that are very old and very consistent and the disconnect here is that most modern progressives don't realize that they have almost totally abandoned the ideological framework that they were raised in, so they still hold onto the word liberal despite abandoning the ideology.
It seems sort of amusingly illiberal, to rewrite history so that liberal is just the word that the left uses to describe itself and so liberals who are no longer in-line with the modern left, despite being totally in-line with liberalism, must be conservatives.
The reality is the modern left is not liberal for any coherent understanding of the term, this is not even ship of Theseus territory, it is an almost total abandonment of liberalism as an ideology. The principled liberals who used to be on the left were all collectively shocked(or shocked later when they finally noticed) as the rug got pulled out from under them and their massive wide spread cultural support vanished over night in the face of woke. As I vaguely gestured to above, I think this is mostly a politics as fashion thing, and all the people who would have smashed the like and re-tweet buttons on "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it," on a hypothetical 1995 twitter, ended up smashing the like and re-tweet buttons on "Freezepeach" on the real 2015 twitter.
A great place to watch this in the wild is, if you have the temperament for it, any Destiny content. Destiny is basically a liberal, and when he talks to progressives he will make liberal arguments, and you can see the sort of confusion and cognitive dissonance, as they try to square a sort of vague background respect for an under-specified liberalism, with their totally illiberal current positions and thinking.
I don't think this right. It is true that progressivism contains illiberal beliefs and values, but that is generally true - virtually every political movement in the US synthesizes liberal and illiberal beliefs. Very few people can be said to have abandoned liberalism, but everyone accepts compromises on liberal values. Sometimes this is directly ideological (something which applies to progressives, populists, religious conservatives, leftists, etc...) and sometimes it is the consequence of disagreements about what liberal values mean in practice or an attempt to reconcile internal ambiguities within liberalism. (Or ideology making contact with reality).
The suggestion that all the principled liberals are on the right is belied by the reality that the modern American right is a coalition of religious conservatives and right-wing populists. These people are not totally illiberal, but their policy preferences center on illiberal goals. The center right, which one would expect to be the standard bearer for conservative liberalism, is functionally dead.
Tellingly, while there is a lot of policy conflict between left and right on culture war issues, the intellectual side of the culture war is almost entirely center left vs far left. The right doesn't have much intellectual firepower to bring to bear, and what it does have tends to be either too spicy for public consumption or too lacking in clout due to misalignment with the broader conservative movement. The latter functionally operate at the right tail of the center left (e.g. people like Lyman Stone or Tanner Greer, who are smart and interesting and also totally untethered from operational conservatism). This is a major reason why conservative illiberalism doesn't get much discussion.
This linguistic shift is decades old (older than me, certainly) and conservatives were enthusiastic participants. The modern progressive movement didn't even exist at the time.
Beyond that, I stand by my initial point: self-described classical liberals are very likely to be people with right-wing views who do not want to describe themselves as conservatives. Not always, certainly (sometimes they are embarassed liberals instead), but someone with conventionally center-left views will probably describe themself as a liberal without adjectives (or maybe a neoliberal if they're terminally online) rather than a classical liberal. The consequence is that professing seemingly anodyne, cross-spectrum beliefs becomes right coded (and 'professing' is the key word here).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't necessarily think this framing is wrong, but this certainly isn't the kind of anodyne charity deployed in the wild.
It's all well and good to say that 90s liberalism would drift into a kind of conservatism as times change. What I see is progressives habitually claiming that this new strain of 'conservatism' is actually the latest genealogical strain of fascism and white supremacy that traces its lineage to Nazism or similar. You see the difference, and so you can surely understand why that tribe may balk at this "No no, you really are technically right-wing" insistence.
I agree that some of this is 'embarrassed conservatism' being expressed by people who probably identified as good liberals up until the 2010s give or take. But some of this is because there are consequences to being frankly conservative. Few are going to honestly embrace the conservative label if that immediately and unfairly typecasts them as villains.
More options
Context Copy link
Am I more right-wing, or are liberals more left-wing? If "free speech" used to be left-coded and now it's right-coded and I am still pro-free speech, who changed?
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
Join the Federation, circa ~2360. Excellent fit, and a good measuring stick besides. Would somebody be uncomfortable as a member of Picard's crew? If so, they're not likely to be an ally to you or me.
More options
Context Copy link
This is mostly my experience as well. I'm a liberal more than I'm a leftist, and in the past, those used to be aligned, but now, leftism has morphed into something that is openly and explicitly anti-liberal, and in that conflict, I'll prefer liberalism every time. As such, a forum like this which is both very right-wing and very liberal is far more interesting to read and to partake in than basically any left-wing forum that I know of. I dislike the right-wing racialism/ethnocentrism, but given that the left side is no better at that stuff, I'll take the liberal discussion about the right-wing than the illiberal (lack-of) discussion about the left-wing.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm probably throwing stones while in a glass house, but I can't help the feeling you've been tying your own rope here. Unless I'm conflating you with other left-leaning posters, I seem to remember years and years of assurances that everything is fine, and us other (some possibly now ex-) classical liberals were overreacting when we were warning about the wave of coming cultural changes.
I don't think I ever said "Everything is fine" but I will admit to not seeing just how quickly and severely things would change and remaining in the "It's just a few crazy college kids" camp for too long. That said, the reason I was on the Motte in the first place was because I was finding myself not sympatico with other people who were supposedly on "my side."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link