site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   31933 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 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.

11
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I believe it's more complicated that you're letting on, but you're touching on one of the major things that define the Enlightenment: Scientific Government.

The best example of this idea is found in Francis Bacon's New Atlantis. The incomplete novel describes a fictional utopian land where "generosity and enlightenment, dignity and splendour, piety and public spirit" are the law of the land. A place ruled by an institution called "Salomon's House" that was explicitly the model for all future academies of science including the French Académie des Sciences and the English Royal Society.

Ye shall understand (my dear friends) that amongst the excellent acts of that king, one above all hath the pre-eminence. It was the erection and institution of an Order or Society, which we call "Salomon's House"; the noblest foundation (as we think) that ever was upon the earth; and the lanthorn of this kingdom. It is dedicated to the study of the Works and Creatures of God. Some think it beareth the founder's name a little corrupted, as if it should be Solamona's House. But the records write it as it is spoken. So as I take it to be denominate of the King of the Hebrews, which is famous with you, and no stranger to us.

At core, the Enlightement is a Platonist revolt against an Aristotelician order. A revolution of humanist philosophers against realist clergymen. And it is therefore no surprise that its essential direction is towards redesigning the world to fit the whims of those now philosopher kings. No surprise that it now culminates in technocracy and managerialism.

From this standpoint, it becomes easy to understand how Enlightenment led to the ascendency of physiocrats turned Liberals, and how it birthed both Communism and Fascism. All these are visions of the world based on technics ruled by would be elite technocrats that design society according to scientific principles.

But those paradoxes you point out I believe show how this isn't the whole story. How come the ideology of scientific government is so against science when it goes against the interests of the ruling class?

Well because like all ideologies it's a completely fictitious excuse to justify the rule of a particular elite, it's color is that of Science merely because the industrial revolution and its marvels gave it a lot of cachet. There was lots to buy with the name of Science for centuries. But if the ascendency of the liberal bourgeoisie didn't coincide with such discoveries, it is my firm belief that the Enlightement would have taken a completely different color.

The spirit of technics lives in Western civilization since these times, and it is useful to understand how its tribulations are justified and understood. But it is not useful in understanding how they are caused. As that still obeys the same pragmatic considerations of power it ever has.

In fact I believe, unlike I expect many here, that the future doesn't hold very much for this vision. I believe that this formula of rule by scientific experts is slowly coming to an end, crushed under the weight of its own contradictions. Unable to renew itself through new industrial marvels it is now only promising a virtuous ecological agony. And I see no way for this to inspire any ascendant elites.

crushed under the weight of its own contradictions

Well, we’ve heard that story before, and it didn’t work out… what’s different about this time?

Maybe it is how it is supposed to be. Because there is a difference in Science and "science" and the pattern here is that Science has remained but "science" gets kicked out. We have gotten rid of concepts race biology for eugenics and phrenology because it is "science", but when we get rid of one other takes it place like "Gender Studies" and CRT and we are about to repeat that cycle by getting rid of it and replacing with some other junk.

Tech stagnation, policy starvation, and accumulating evidence.

...Well, shit. Just steal all my thunder, why dontcha!

Credit to all, I would say.

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