In all major socializing forces you will find an underlying movement to gain and maintain power through the use of words. From witch doctor to priest to bureaucrat it is all the same. A governed populace must be conditioned to accept power-words as actual things to confuse the symbolized system with the tangible universe. In the maintenance of such a power structure, certain symbols are kept out of the reach of common understanding — symbols such as those dealing with economic manipulation or those which define the local interpretation of sanity. Symbol-secrecy of this form leads to the development of fragmented sub-languages, each being a signal that its users are accumulating some form of power.
-Frank Herbert
Though this is a quote, I believe that it is so precisely said that it is worth posting on the top level.
Personally, a big part of me supports the dawn of super-human AI that annihilates the human species just because I think that it would be funny as fuck to see humans world-wide suddenly show horror and terror as they realize that they are about to get exterminated, treated the same way that we treat a bunch of non-human animals. It would be the most funny, the most comedic moment in the history of humanity as suddenly all human self-importance gets popped. I would have a multiple-hour orgasm of comedy. Yeah, I would die too but who cares, I'm going to die anyway.
This is veering pretty close to waging culture war and, while not building consensus, assuming consensus.
My understanding of the spirit of the Motte is that when you write on the Motte, you should not assume a background of people who share your political views.
That is, my understanding is that this is not supposed to be a place where you share excited "inside opinions" about how your preferred politics are going.
I say this not as someone who is for the "Yes", but just as someone who does not want more culture war waging here.
Goodguy
5mo ago
Well, I think that in a society as liberal as the modern US it's nearly child abuse to bullshit your kid deliberately so that they will have an easier time fitting in. If you're raising your son in Nazi Germany and he has a pretty decent chance of literally getting killed if you teach him to be a free thinker, I guess that's different. But in a more liberal society, the way I see it you're depriving your child of some of the things that make life most worth living in an awake and aware way in order to make it easier for them to sleep through life, all just so that they have an easier time of fitting in with various forms of idiocy.
Fair enough, maybe calling it close to child abuse is a bit exaggerated on my part, but I would say it's not too far off the mark.
It's not our place to belittle those who march off to fight and die at our direction, at the will of the white-collar class.
They sign up to potentially kill complete strangers on government orders, because they believe in the cause and/or for money. They willingly turn themselves into tools of the government. Hence I will belittle and mock them just as surely as I belittle and mock the government itself. If you are fine with belittling and mocking the government, then there is no reason not to belittle and mock the people who willingly make themselves into that government's agents.
The vast majority of the moral harms were committed by careless policymakers and senior officers who committed troops to achieving the unachievable.
100% of the actual harms were committed by the soldiers, not the politicians. If the soldiers did not follow the orders, the harms would not have happened.
Do you want to go and risk getting turned to meat paste by Chinese hypersonics?
Nobody has to risk that to begin with. The US is more than well-enough protected by its nuclear arsenal and, on top of that, by the oceans. If some American decides that going to fight for Taiwan or South Korea or whatever is really important to him - either because he cares about those countries or because he cares about maintaining US global military dominance and economic might - then alright, fine, but I'm not going to pretend that it has anything to do with defending the US itself from a threat of being militarily attacked.
Goodguy
5mo ago
What makes standing for the national anthem important? Like, which one? The national anthem of England, or the one of the traitorous colonists? If in Nazi Germany or the USSR, is it a basic civic norm to stand for the national anthem?
In my book, trying to force kids to stand for the national anthem is practically child abuse. Loyalty to country is a thought-terminating cliche.
Goodguy
11mo ago
Maybe, but I hope people realize that there are still many people in the United States who think that they are under hostile occupation by conservative Christians and have good reason to think so. The typical TheMotte commenter, I think, has lived in liberal urban areas for most of his life and does not realize that oppressive conservative Christianity is still a force to be reckoned with in some parts of the country. I think that the kind of people who enjoy mocking Christianity are probably disproportionately drawn from people who escaped such oppressive environments when they were young, much as many of the most fervent anti-communists are people who escaped communist regimes.
Goodguy
1mo ago
But I'm not sure "everyone" knows this. I just responded to a comment that argued the opposite in fact.
Yep, many people didn't know it of course. But people who even half-seriously follow modern war without being blinded by some sort of bias knew it.
Probably, but as this isn't 1990 it matters a lot less.
Sure, but having the Persian Gulf closed down for months would still be a giant shit show for the world economy. And probably not good for the Democratic Party in an election year given that in today's US political situation, there is unlikely to be some sort of "rally around the flag" effect as a result of any war that didn't start with the US getting directly attacked, and the Democratic Party base is divided about Israel to begin with.
Yes. That's the meat. Will Israel attack Iran's nuclear capability? It will be good for the world if they do. Terrorists should not have nukes.
This is a matter of preference. Personally, I am in favor of Iran getting nukes because I do not wish them to be continually threatened by Israel and the US. The "world" would largely be unaffected. It's not like if Iran gets nukes, they are going to nuke Zimbabwe or Thailand or something. In fact, even if they got nukes, given the reality of mutually assured destruction they almost certainly would not even nuke Israel or any US assets.
Goodguy
2mo ago
That's interesting. Anecdotally, I don't think I've ever heard a woman make such an argument around me, even though I live in a heavily politically "progressive" area. Not even the most fervent SJWs have done it around me. I wonder what kind of social circles you are moving in that you see so much of it.
Goodguy
4mo ago
It's only weakmanning to show how bad a group is if you assume that Gdanning thinks there is something bad about disliking Obama for his skin color.
I am sure that with some people, this actually is a moral principle. Tolkien, for example. Based on his works, at least, he seems to have truly appreciated that sort of emotion, something like "I may not be the king, but I wish that whoever is the king is a good and just king who helps his people". There are a number of other such right-leaning (by modern standards) intellectuals who seem to have genuinely been motivated by at least some altruism.
A funny thing though is that on the right, this emotion has long been mixed with something that is very different: an extremely powerful and (mostly) closeted, emotional-sexual complex with overtones of father issues. The anti-egalitarian right has a strong streak of closeted mostly-homosexual eroticism that revolves around dominance/submission. Think of those Nazi uniforms and the Nazi cult of the virile young man, and the adulation of Hitler as some sort of almost living god, for example. and in general, think of the whole Prussian style of life, with its stern fathers and hyper-focus on discipline, social rank, and obedience. Or think of Mishima, whose life speaks for itself. In the modern day, think of the Bronze Age Pervert / Greek statue Twitter style of aesthetic, with its emphasis on toned male bodies and the constant dancing around the fact that many of the actual ancient Greeks enjoyed having sex with men very much. Nothing wrong with some gay sex, but it is funny to see the sublimation in action. Even if they have never heard the word, such people long to be part of a Koryos - although, if in reality they actually did get to be a part of some such group, with its intense hazing and male bonding, they might wish to flee from it quite soon. They have their admiration of masculinity bound up with their psycho-sexual natures. While they might be horrified at the idea of being an older ancient Greek man's young companion who gets both mentored and dominated, maybe even fucked, they long for the softer version of something similar that can be found in Fight Club, or in movies about the tight bonds between soldiers. There is a strong psycho-sexual need for an older brother or a "daddy" of some sort. Now, we all could use a nice older brother or a loving father, but among some of the highly online right it is clear that these archetypes have become fetishized.
Such people often have a powerful obsession with the idea that modern society lacks transition rites to turn boys into men, that it is missing a Koryos of some sort. The modern highly online right has a high over-representation of people who for some reason feel like they need to become men by doing something. Now, normally this just happens as one goes through life. One meets challenges, faces them, sometimes gets defeated and learns something to come back to the fray, at other times conquers the challenge and advances to new heights. Over time, one gains a stronger and stronger sense of one's own power.
Men who, for whatever reason, get stunted in this power process, to borrow a term from an infamous writer, make up a large fraction of the people who get drawn to extremist politics with strong sexual connotations. This is perhaps the grain of truth behind the meme of "young anime-loving autist boy has two possible paths in life: either become a super-leftist transgender with pink-and-blue socks, or become a Nazi LARPer who hates women and posts online going by the name of GasTheKikes1488". In either case, these people seem to have a powerful feeling that something key is missing in their self-image.
The 10% of the right that is made up of actual humane intellectuals is simultaneously struggling with the weight of the 80% of the right who have about the intelligence level of a piece of wood, and with another 10% of the right that is made up of raging, messed-up edgelords.
Goodguy
2mo ago
I don't mean that you should stop talking about the trans stuff, I just don't agree with how big of a deal some people here make of the trans stuff, and how often they post about it, given how few people it affects compared to other issues. I get that it's a leftist vanguard in the culture war, but then people should be more honest that they care about it because it's a leftist vanguard more than that they care about it because of the kids who are getting hurt by it. I agree with you though that the direction the practice is trending in is encouraging in, that makes me happy.
Different people want different things. We don't live in a US where we all fundamentally want the same thing, but we just have different ideas of how to get there. No, we truly want different things.
For me, for example, leftist seething is a plus. I enjoy it. I don't care about national unity. It is not one of my preferences. I like the political tensions and the rage. For me it's a plus of Trump. I like right-wing seething too. The seething tastes good. The reasons why I don't like Trump are his authoritarianism and his foreign policy. If he suddenly supported drug legalization, promised to pardon Assange, and said that he would end all foreign aid to Israel, there's a good chance I'd vote for him. But those things aren't going to happen. So I'm not going to vote for him, but if he wins I will at least enjoy all of the leftist seething that he provokes.
Infantile seething is not just a leftist thing. I well remember all of the Republican seething during Bill Clinton's time. Populist republican forums practically considered him the Antichrist, his wife to be a murderer, and discussion of X-Files-esque black helicopter UN theories was not uncommon. Obama generated plenty of seethe on the right too, hence birtherism. It's just a part of modern American politics.
We may be on the same page then, I think. As I pointed out, I also feel a great deal of affinity for my own American friends. More than I feel for some random political fellow traveler thousands of miles away. It's just that I don't feel any additional level of affinity for people just because they are American.
I am not an American by birth, only by residence. I feel almost no loyalty whatsoever to America and am almost entirely happy to exploit it for my own benefit without feeling any sense of duty to it in return. I feel only slightly more loyalty to my ethnic group than I do to Americans (while recognizing that this is an irrational emotional urge), and none whatsoever to the government that currently rules my birth country. I do like Americans on average and feel a good bit of loyalty to certain specific ones who I am friends with but of course, I feel no loyalty whatsoever to the US government or to any abstract notions of "America".
I myself am not advocating for the moralistic argument and am quite content with leaving things at the selfish argument level, I'm just pointing out that US nativists could only be consistent by either grasping the selfish argument and abandoning moral ones or by advocating for non-interventionism.
In general, I simply do not respect borders, rules, or abstract notions of distinctions between nations or ethnic groups on any sort of ideological level. I am pragmatic - in practice, I respect the realities of such distinctions insofar as that is necessary to protect myself from violence, but I do not value borders, rules, or national distinctions in any ideological sense. When I cross a country's border, I have no sense at all that I am crossing some sort of line on a map that requires me to change anything about myself - I simply feel that I am moving from one place on the surface of this big rock, which is dominated by people who follow certain patterns of behavior, to another place, which is dominated by people who follow different patterns of behavior.
At the same time, I will of course not be so stupid as to not avail myself of other people's genuine ideological beliefs in things like borders and nations to benefit myself if it ever proves necessary. For example, I am perfectly happy to avail myself of the benefits of America's relatively strong rule of law while at the same time feeling almost no obligation whatsoever to America as a geographical, ethnic, or legal entity.
And I do not consider myself immoral for this. I do care deeply about certain Americans - to be precise, my friends and those I view as allies. And in that, I am very much American. How much does the average Democrat care about Republicans? How much does the average Republican care about Democrats? Most Americans, it seems to me, at least the ones who care a lot about politics, which includes most people on this site, in reality operate just the same as I do. Any US-dwelling right-wing Motte poster who feels more affinity to some foreign writer who agrees politically with him than he does to some SJW leftist who was born and bred in the US is just the same as I am.
Goodguy
7mo ago
declining fertility, declining religious belief, increased alienation of the individual, and increased mental illness
Declining religious belief does not seem like a negative to me.
Increased alienation of the individual is compensated for by the fact that humans are now more free from having their lives dominated by the small communities in which they grew up.
I am not sure that mental illness actually has increased, especially if you classify at least some forms of religiosity as forms of mental illness. Stuff like the Children's Crusade and the Salem Witch Trials do not seem to me like signs of a mentally healthy culture. Pre-Enlightenment Europe had horrific things like the 30 Years War happening, it was not some bastion of mental health.
Declining fertility might actually be a real problem going forward, I do agree with that, but it seems to me that most current cultures that have high levels of fertility have their own very real problems.
Goodguy
11mo ago
But it’s also kind of scary, because if it’s that easy to be happy and fulfilled despite living in a decadent, empty, atomized, soulless, blah blah blah modern hellscape (etc etc), then why aren’t you doing it?
The marriage and children part sounds boring to me. The only motivation I have to do it is to increase my odds of having people around me in my old age, but from an ethical perspective to me that seems like not a very good reason to get married and have kids. Maybe I should just look at it more pragmatically. Probably most of my grandparents' generation would have viewed it as a totally valid reason to get married and have kids even if they did not want to do that for any other reason. But even if that's true, still, it does not change the fact that getting married and having kids sounds boring to me.
Goodguy
21d ago
I think that for the most part, I came to these conclusions independently, being a big history buff. The intense psycho-sexual atmosphere of the typical authoritarian childhood upbringing and the homoerotic, fetishistic quality of fascism and Nazism are so obvious that it doesn't really require any profound insight to notice them.
To be fair to the far right, leftist totalitarianism also has this homoerotic, fetishistic quality to some degree.
Goodguy
2mo ago
I have no interest in being hamstrung by the circumcision debate while more clear and obvious ethical violations are occuring in front of our eyes.
To me it's not clear which is the more clear and obvious ethical violation.
Especially since nobody's going to harangue me for having incorrect opinions on circumcision.
Depends on where you bring up the topic.
Goodguy
4mo ago
If I had been in charge of US foreign policy for the last 60 years or so, 9/11 would not have happened and the Houthis would not be attacking any US shipping because I would not have intervened militarily in the Middle East or supported Israel, so Middle Eastern military and paramilitary groups would not have had any reason to resort to such drastic measures against the US.
Goodguy
5mo ago
If the deep state is really as powerful and good at working in shadows as some people think, why is Trump even still alive? Couldn't such a powerful organization manage to kill him in some way that looks like a plausible sudden health failure of some kind? More kinetic means such as arranging a car accident would be too likely to draw outrage from his supporters, but what if he just suddenly had a heart attack or something? I don't know how possible this is to achieve medically, though.
Goodguy
9mo ago
The (in my opinion, of course) tiny chance that they would use it in a first strike does not bother me. I have seen absolutely no reason to think that they are suicidal.
I guess they might use it if they get attacked first, but I wouldn't blame them for that and in any case, if they get nukes it is very unlikely that anyone will attack them.
The most important lesson of the Ukraine war is: get nukes, get nukes, get nukes. Countries that do not have nukes are not even really countries, they are just disputed zones fought over by countries that do have nukes.
Goodguy
9mo ago
Fair enough, you of course not have to get into a discussion of values if you do not want to, but let me see where you disagree with me here...
-
Some number of people died from covid. You seem to agree with this.
-
A smaller number of people would have died from covid if more stringent anti-covid interventions had been pursued. Do you agree with this?
If you agree with both, then we are already basically just discussing values, basically the value of saving some life-years as opposed to the value of other things.
For thousands of years people also "knew" that the Earth was the center of the solar system. I too think that the conventional notion of men and women maps better onto the actual distribution of human characteristics than the trans activist notion does*, but appealing to common sense is not a good argument for it.
*With the caveat that it is actually a distribution rather than a pure binary distinction. However, the distribution is so dominated by the two clusters of "men" and "women" as traditionally understood that the conventional notion of men and women does not lose much from a pragmatic perspective even if it is not technically accurate.
Being Catholic is a choice in a way that being black or ethnic Jewish is not. Hence making fun of blacks or ethnic Jews for being blacks or ethnic Jews is more mean spirited than making fun of Catholics for being Catholics.
There is a difference of quality between, for example, making fun of a person for thinking that the Earth is flat and making fun of a person because he belongs to a certain ethnic group. Both are mean spirited, but the former is at least potentially part of some kind of meaningful debate, whereas the latter leads nowhere except to divisiveness.
More options
Context Copy link