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 -
I think that in reality if elected Trump would probably just spend all day tweeting and failing to implement his promises. However, to many Democrats it is almost as if Trump is a Lovecraftian god the mere mention of whom leads to insanity. Such Democrats view him as some sort of annihilating force the very presence of which in the universe warps and endangers the sane, wholesome building blocks of existence itself. Meanwhile I just see a fat old huckster sociopath who talks a lot of shit but is effectively restrained by checks and balances. Not a savory person, maybe even a rapist, pretty certainly a bad guy, but not some sort of fundamental essential threat to the entire being of American democracy or to sanity.
It is not that I do not believe in evil. But I do find it odd when liberals perceive demonic evil in Trump, yet make excuses for vicious violent criminals (at least, as a class if not always individually) who are enabled by Democrats' soft-on-crime policies.
Would Trump do many harmful things in office? I am sure. Harris would as well. Which one would do more, who knows? I do not see a clear-cut answer to that question. He certainly would be no angel, I am sure of that. But it also seems to me that often, vehement anti-Trump sentiment has little to do with a clear-eyed assessment of the possible harms that he would cause.
What explains the particular mind-shattering power that Trump somehow inflicts on so many of his political opponents? Interestingly, it largely do not seem to be his actual political counterparts among the Democrat elite who view him as an eldritch destroyer of worlds... the Democrat elite may hate him, may despise him, may say that he is a threat to democracy, but I don't think I can remember any time that any of them acted as if he was a threat to one's very psychological foundation. Maybe their power and their close understanding of American politics generally inoculates them against such a reaction.
Lest someone think that I come only to shit on the Democrats, unfortunately no. Would that I actually supported either of the two main parties... my political life would be easier. But the Republicans, too, deserve some questioning on this topic. Republicans' reaction to Bill and Hillary Clinton, at one point, was a sort of precursor to the mental shattering caused by the concept of Trump. Interestingly, despite often being accused of being racist, from what I recall Republicans did not actually react to Obama quite as hysterically as they reacted to the Clintons. Sure, there was a lot of vitriol against Obama, such as Birtherism, but it was probably half as vehement as what was thrown at the Clintons.
Yet even though Republicans were in many ways mind-melted by the Clintons, including to the point that Republican forums back in the day teemed with theories about the Clintons literally being a murderous and pedophilic crime family, I still do not think it quite matches up to the new standards of psychological devastation that Trump has wreaked. That might sound weird, given the murderous pedophile thing, but to me supporters of those theories generally just seem like they are stupid and prone to weird fantasies and LARPs but have always been that way, whereas people who are existentially shattered by Trump seem like they might have been different at one point, but then suddenly Trump appeared in the corner of their reality and traumatically inverted it into some new configuration of dimensions.
Why does Trump have this effect? Is it just that there is a large number of people in this country who fail to agree with me that Trump's chances of becoming a dictator are extremely small, that a man who has most key institutions against him, has the top military brass against him, and lives in a country where the military rank and file are probably not about to try to overthrow civilian authority, has very little chance of ending American democracy?
I am not sure. The idea of Trump being the curtain call on American democracy is certainly one of the main things behind his psychological impact on people, but I have seen plenty of people who seem existentially horrified by him for completely different reasons. Some people seem to be driven out of their wits' ends just by the very fact that Trump is crude and vulgar rather than sounding like an intellectual.
I'll go for a more psychological take, and I'd be curious what @coffee_enjoyer thinks as well.
Generally though I'd say that Trump's personality represents the aggressive masculine behavior that is most repressed in the modern PMC / progressive class. Direct confrontation, bravery to go against the crowd, and immunity to personal attacks and shaming are all extremely destabilizing to the progressive psyche.
There are complicated reasons for this, but the most basic way I can think to put it is that feminism became a strong force because the masculine side of world society went way overboard with WW1 and WW2. Society psychologically needed a balanced and reacted strongly with fear of the masculine, fear of anger, fear of aggression, etc.
When you see something or someone that represents parts of yourself that you repress, it often creates really judgmental or shameful feelings in you. This is sometimes talked about as projection but that's a whole nother complicated thing.
I think on the flip side the reason the Clintons pissed off the Republicans so much is that the demographic that hated them was also repressing what the Clintons represented - namely rich, cosmopolitan, intellectual, and polished coastal elites. But that's a bit more complicated as well.
Direct confrontation happens in progressive spaces frequently; the most typical example would be a black woman haranguing some hapless white “ally” for transgressing some implicit taboo. (In fact, I have a theory that one reason PMC white women worship and defer to black women so thoroughly is because they envy black women’s comfort with direct confrontation.)
Similarly, “bravery to go against the crowd” and “immunity to personal attacks and shaming” are key pillars of the 21st-century worldview and ethos! That’s what “pride parades” and “letting your freak flag fly” are all about! Transgression of “bourgeois norms”, garish expression of difference, etc.
Now, of course I’m familiar with the counterarguments. “When transgression is the norm, the people who think they’re transgressing are actually conforming!” “We’re not talking about the weird antifa freaks, we’re only talking about professional-class white-collar workers who profess progressive politics as a tribal signifier!” Okay, then people need to speak more precisely. Because conservatives can’t simultaneously be the party of normal middle-class people with conventional folkways on the one hand, and on the other hand attack progressives for being too conformist.
Direct confrontation happens, if you have numbers behind you and you are positioned appropriately on the progressive stack. But shaming and personal attacks only go in one direction. I think you're completely wrong that white women envy black women's comfort with direct confrontation. They are afraid of it. That's why white women (and progressives, more generally) lose against cancel culture. Because they are afraid to say "No" (or more pointedly, "Fuck off with your bullshit").
No, those are key parts of a popular delusion. Everyone (including here!) imagines himself a brave iconoclast, not afraid of speaking truth to power, not going along with the sheeple, definitely not an NPC. I totally worked out all my beliefs carefully from first principles and examine all evidence and do my own research and don't just take anyone else's word for it, especially not so-called "experts"! And I totally don't care what people think of me, ima gonna speak my truth!
This is bullshit, of course, for 90% of men and probably 99% of women. But we all like to imagine ourselves brave little cockerels strutting around unintimidated by popular opinion.
Yes, conservatives are delusional when they claim progressives are the conformist ones. But you (soy blue-tribe ex-progressive, by your own description) still seem perversely fond of the mythology you claim to have left behind, that progressives are the "radical" ones who aren't afraid to stand up and thrown down. The confrontation and conflict you describe is mostly petty infighting. No progressive would be brave enough to become a centrist or a heterodox classical liberal (like a lot of us here on the Motte) because he'd be booed, shamed, and forced to grovel unless he actually goes on the "I left the Left" grifting circuit (which requires basically leaving your entire social circle behind). Progressives don't do direct confrontation unless it's a struggle session (a bunch of people ganging up on the designated scapegoat) or in solidarity against an approved enemy (Trump, Israel, heteronormative late stage capitalism, whatever).
Gay pride parades are, exactly as you say, not even remotely transgressive anymore! They imagine themselves to be so- which is why you see people wearing S&M puppy gear or spreading their cheeks to show their rectums on Folsom Street, to try to retain some sense of actually "shocking the normies." But yeah, the early pride movement might have had some claim to be transgressive and brave, when they actually risked bottles and arrests. The vast majority of participants today would fold like cheap suits if threatened with physical danger or actual social disapprobation.
@TheDag's point (which I largely agree with) is that Trump appeals to the voter who wishes he could say "Fuck you" to his HR department and to DEI hires. Here's a guy who is constantly being called Literally Hitler and he doesn't care! Politicians don't do that anymore! The average Republican, even really conservative Republicans, will fold if accused of sexism or racism and mumble something about how unfair such accusations are. Trump doesn't care! He'll laugh and say "I love women! I love black people!" And then keep doing what he's doing.
I have literally made this exact same point before! (I’m not going to try and sift through this site’s awful search function to try and track down the comment, but I know it made the AAQC list.) The reality is that it’s both! They are terrified when black women’s “righteous anger” is turned on them, absolutely. However, I believe that white women see black women as their avatar - their “anger translator” - who can say to the powerful white men in their lives the things that the white women themselves are too acculturated, too bourgeois, too timid to say themselves.
I work in a pink-collar setting (I’m literally the only man on my team) and I can tell you that the number of “sassy black woman” GIFs shared by the white women on my team daily is staggering. Each of them seems to want to believe she has a little “black woman” inside of her - the unrestrained, unabashedly emotional part of her personality - and that only black (and to a somewhat lesser extent Latina) women are able to reliably access. Note that white women almost never want to actually be black women themselves; they just want to have one (1) black woman around for when some white man is being unpleasant or unreasonable, so that somebody can say to his face what all the white and Asian women have been saying behind his back.
I’m not fond of it, because I don’t think that the “brave iconoclast” is an unambiguously admirable figure. I think that being a contrarian is very often overrated (I say this from experience, because being a contrarian has largely wrecked my life in many ways) and that actually our society would be far better off if we stopped valorizing the archetype of the “individual genius standing alone against the close-minded majority”. Our culture has a dearth of social harmony. Even if the progressives of today were still the real transgressive nonconformists, I’m not sure that would speak positively of them!
This absolutely still does shock the normies! The whole “groomer” discourse on the right demonstrates conclusively that the queer left is still successfully scandalizing normal people. Yes, obviously the ratchet has turned significantly since the 70s in terms of how vulgar something has to be in order to shock people. Maybe in fifteen years we’ll be saying, “Man, I wish gays could just go back to the time when all they did was expose their gaping anuses to people.” Maybe we haven’t seen the true depths of depravity people are willing to stoop to in order to maintain shock value. Will every pride parade in 2040 be indistinguishable from a GG Allin concert? Perhaps!
Yes, but note that the normies pretty conclusively don't give a damn outside of that temporary shock. You can get them to give a damn once the left starts explicitly defending rapists, but they don't press the issue. It's the "well, why aren't Republicans bombing abortion clinics any more?" argument all over again.
The "groomer" discourse is a failure for the same reasons the longhouse is inevitable: simply put, Western society is unwilling and unable to control female bad actors. The LGBTQuestion is just the latest instantiation of "man bad woman good", after all, and the HR and education departments responsible for pushing it are majority female.
European society (that does this) is significantly less wealthy and its individual citizens less powerful than in American society. And that didn't save them from progressivism; in fact, it made them more vulnerable to it due to lacking the inoculation that American society has against that very thing.
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