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 hear what you're saying, and yes I recognize irony in saying that given the capital-N noticing in the following paragraph. My Lauren is named Katie but it is the same vibe, the same relationship, and I do really wish her well.
As a contrast I would like to tell a story about someone I used to know, Alex (also not their real name). Alex was a good respectable kid, from a good respectable family, attending a very respectable school. We had a lot in common, similar interests, similar hobbies, we were both aspiring writers, and we were both studying the law. Naturally we became friends.
The story starts with Alex's childhood friend Ben (again not his real name) Like Alex, Ben was a good respectable kid, from a good respectable family, attending a very respectable school, and looking forward to a good respectable career. Both Alex and Ben were very active on sites like 4-chan, one of my first encounters with Ben was a discussion with him and Alex of a then ongoing psy-op to convince people that the "ok sign" was a white-nationalist dog whistle. The two of them thought it was hilarious that they had helped get some truck-driver fired over it. My response was to tell both of them that I thought it was kind of fucked-up that someone's livelihood was being disrupted because some college kids in another state thought it would be fun to do a bit of trolling. "Lighten up and grow a sense of humor" Ben told me. It was through this interaction and others like it that that I came to understand that Ben had a very "flexible" approach to morality, and as funny, charming, and well-read as he might be, he was also callous and cruel. He was not, as you put it, "a basically good person (BGP)".
Sometime after we had all graduated, Alex asked me if I would act as a reference for Ben. I declined In part because I did not think that Ben was a BGP and in part because I had plans to run for office was increasingly conscious of who I wanted my name to be associated with. I could tell that my refusal hurt Alex's feelings but they did not press the issue. Sometime later it came to pass that Ben was in some serious legal trouble. What had started a low-key investigation into allegations of professional misconduct had uncovered evidence of far more serious crimes.
Naturally this was a topic that Alex and I talked about, and something that Alex kept coming back to was how "unfortunate" it was that Ben had lost his job and was likely going to go to prison. This was a thread that I just could not help but tug at, leading to the following paraphrased conversation.
This took me aback. Someone who I quite liked, for whom I had a lot of respect seemed to be making a fully general argument against having any legal code at all.
I tried to argue that we can not have a safe high-trust society where rapists murders and thieves are free to rape murder and steal without consequence. For Alex's part, they argued from first principles. Harm and suffering were axiomatically bad. Ergo inflicting harm and suffering on another was always wrong regardless of the circumstances. I would ask things like "How is saying nobody should ever be punished for a specific crime, any different from saying that crime should be legal?". "Don't you have any sympathy for the accused?" and "Are you arguing that harm and suffering are good?" Alex would respond. And so we went in circles, and as we did the conversation became more vitriolic. It ended with Alex accusing me of being hateful, vindictive, and wanting to hurt Ben out of jealousy, and with me calling Alex "an enabler" and "a fucking sociopath". The next day I found that Alex had blocked my number, and had blocked me on social media.
This happened a while ago but I have been thinking about it lately because I feel like my falling out with Alex illustrates a quintessential failure mode of the sort of polite liberalism espoused by commentators like David Roberts, Bill Kristol, and Scott Alexander. And I feel like I've been seeing the results this failure mode more and more of late across multiple stages and venues in my professional, personal, political, and online life.
Scott Alexander was wrong. The natural end state of liberal discourse is not "seven zillion Witches and three Principled Libertarians" it is "seven zillion Witches and zero Principled Libertarians" because all the libertarians have been shouted down, driven off, or banned, for refusing to compromise on one point or another.
I see all these people lamenting increasing polarization, lack of trust, and proliferation of "Stand Your Ground Laws", and the question I really want to ask all of them is; To what degree have you been the Jack Kerouac to someone else's Dean Moriarty?
I'm confused by this; are you in the role of polite libertarian here, or is Alex? Facially, this sounds like a bog-standard case of pampered sociopath twentysomethings happily bullying a weaker person for laughs, but feeling shocked and offended when any unpleasant consequences come for a Real Person of their class and social circle. Tale as old as time, surely? As Mel Brooks said: "Tragedy is when I cut my finger; comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die."
The only slight wrinkle here is that Alex had the cognitive capacity to build a bullshit ad-hoc argument around his visceral indignation at a system that would impose any suffering on him or his friends. But as you point out, the argument makes no sense, and presumably Alex himself would drop it immediately if someone ever committed a crime against him. What is the connection to Stand Your Ground laws?
Not a libertarian, more a principled anti-accelerationist and lets-stay-cilvilized-itarian,
I don't think the argument was post hoc, Alex seemed to be quite invested in it, and in hindsight a sincere belief to that effect would seem to explain some of their more idiosyncratic takes.
As for Stand Your Ground laws, the connection is in how "polite liberals" talk about them. There seems to be this presumption that a civilized person must always defer to the uncivilized. They ask questions like would you really shoot a man for attacking you on the street or trying to break into your house? as if it's some sort of got-cha and then are scandalized responds in the affirmative.
It's almost as if they don't see violent schizophrenics attacking people on the train, or rioters burning a neighborhood, as a problem to be solved because that's just what those sorts of people do. See Mayor Rawling-Blake's infamous line about giving people room. As Heath Ledger's Joker would say. "it's all part of the plan" and people will go along with a plan even when it's horrible because it makes them feel in control. I think this certain people seem to have such a visceral reaction to Stand Your Ground Laws and figures like Kyle Rittenhouse, while simultaneously extending infinite charity to figures like Decarlos Brown.
Doesn't this make some sense as a countersignaling performance of elite strength and nonchalance (what used to be called sprezzatura)? Realistically, the average PMC person faces little direct risk from random crime or violence, and less risk the wealthier/ better-connected they are. Simultaneously, the average middle-class person has lots to potentially gain from appearing impressively high-status, secure and confident to their PMC peers, including by showing that they don't need to fear the underclass, don't worry about job competition from foreign workers, etc.
Kyle Rittenhouse feels more cringe than anything else, and for middle-class status purposes it's often worse to be cringe than to be wrong.
Edit: to the original question about Alex, I think Chesterton points out that sometimes when people preach toleration and mercy, they actually just don't disapprove of the action in question. It's a shame you're no longer friends, because I'd be curious to learn whether they would endorse punishment for actions that are unsympathetically gauche rather than just immoral in a plebe way. (I'm not sure what would feel genuinely "gauche" for a well-pedigreed law student who's also a former edgelord/troll, but perhaps you can imagine something? Perhaps if a white, female fellow-student from Alabama, failing some key classes, were caught trying to bargain for grades by faking a rape accusation against a well-regarded male African-American professor - would Alex argue that she should not be expelled? That the professor shouldn't be able sue her for damages?)
More options
Context Copy link
The correct answer to that question is "no, I wouldn't shoot a man for attacking you or breaking into your house; we don't owe you masculinity".
Feels? No, is. Those supporting rioters burning neighborhoods do that specifically because those rioters will never get close to theirs, and as such permitting and encouraging rioters is how they exercise control over everyone else. They're shock troopers, backed up by the rest of the army that is the judiciary, to perpetrate random violence on the rest of the citizenry because it's funny.
Just because the cruel king is now "a significant portion of the citizenry in general" and not "one man or a few men" as it was in times of old doesn't make them less of a cruel king, and even a king like that has supporters simply by virtue of being the king.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Scott said that the natural end-state of free-speech alternatives to captured discourse venues was "approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches". He didn't say that this was the natural end-state of those captured discourse venues themselves, and almost certainly doesn't believe it.
More options
Context Copy link
The whole story is very odd, but this stood out. How did they contribute to it exactly? Was there a 4chan campaign to email the guy's employer that I haven't heard about? Because if not I find it bizarre they'd even see themselves as contributing to the guy's firing.
You're both wrong. There is no natural state of liberal discourse, and liberalism's obsession with pretending that it's merely riding natural tides rather then shaping them, is exactly why it's taking such a beating of late.
Ben claimed to have gone to the employer's website and filed a complaint form about their "racist" driver, it was going that extra step that formed my opinion of him as "not a BGP".
Christ, what a wanker.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link