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 -
Paul Graham is out today with an essay about the origins of woke. There's nothing in the essay that's particularly new. Did he know about Richard Hanania's book? Did Hanania know that perhaps his book would be better as an essay?
In any case, I think the better topic would be this:
How did wokeness die?
Of course, wokeness isn't dead. Far from it. But the vibe shift is real, and I think it's pretty fair to say that wokeness did peak in 2020/21 and is in serious retreat now. Paul Graham kinda glosses over the reason for its decline, saying:
But I'm not sure this really explains it. As the social movement known as wokeness gained power, it was able to get more and more people placed into high-ranking positions. Governments, universities, and big corporations all have what are essentially commissars who are given high-paying jobs to enforce orthodoxy. At first, wokeness was just true believers. But pretty soon it gained adherents who did it for practical reasons – they put their pronouns in their bios because their jobs literally depended on it. It seems like a self-reinforcing cycle. Once woke people get more power, they make demands which include hiring even more woke people, giving them more power, etc... Anyone who speaks out is banished from the organization.
There's no limiting principle here. Other social movements, like Christianity, grew and grew until they took over essentially all institutions. Why couldn't wokeness do the same?
Here's my attempt at an explanation.
Wokeness is ultimately like cancer. It grows but it can not thrive because it destroys the institutions it corrupts. Scott talked about how whales should in theory get cancer more readily than smaller animals. A blue whale has 3,000 times as many cells as a human. Each one could theoretically become cancerous. So why aren't blue whales riddled with cancer at a rate 3,000 times that of humans?
Scott's theory: cancer cells are unstable, and the cancer cells themselves get cancer, preventing the malignancy from growing. It's a rare cancer that grows quickly but is stable enough to not implode.
I can't comment on the accuracy of this biological model, but as an analogy for social movements it works well. Early Christianity grew without limit because it was fruitful. Wokeness died because it was toxic. Today, the left is famous for its circular firing squads in which people are excommunicated for the smallest breaches of orthodoxy. Ultimately, this was its fatal flaw. It couldn't coordinate action against its enemies because it was so obsessed with killing its own.
What is wokeness, specifically?
This isn’t actually a meaningful response. Firstly because it just kicks the can one step up — how you define “social justice”? Secondly, because “performativity” is neither exclusive to wokeness — God knows I’ve seen plenty of conservatives wearing in-your-face Trump memorabilia, putting American flag and/or Thin Blue Line stickers on their trucks, etc. — nor actually the primary issue with wokeness; there are tons of woke NGOs and anonymous woke bureaucrats doing plenty behind the scenes, unheralded, to advance specific causes and to cause material legal and political change. Focusing only on the “performative” stuff actually misses the point and allows those less “performative” actors to continue their work unnoticed and unimpeded.
'Performative' is the fig leaf that liberals use to distinguish good theory from bad praxis. In practice, however, it is a nuance without a difference, given that liberalism has no defense against bad actors from the left. We know this to be true because of spectacular tactical victories on part of activists and 'the groups' to impose their views on (charitably) good-meaning and agreeable people.
Let me give you my definition: wokeness is the barely-disguised will to power through the soft and feminine language of slave morality. It exults the weak and marginalized to the height of society, to right historical wrongs. That is the 'social justice' part. The 'woke' part comes from the conspiratorial assertions that the dominant racial group in the West (white, male people) have been systematically keeping the marginalized out of power and that it is fundamentally imbedded into every aspect of society.
This concept is called 'white supremacy.'
Therefore, every effort must be made to make society 'woke', to advantage minorities, ethnic and sexual, within the system to counteract the inherent bias of the institutions. Although this definition will be fiercely contested by its own proponents - they are self-aware enough that the programme is wildly unpopular - one defines things by its outcomes, by its real-world impacts. Definitional word games do not change the fundamental power-seeking, inquisitorial drive of the movement. Individually the elements that compose it may not be novel but it is the combination of these elements that make 'woke' what it is.
What is "feminine language"?
https://x.com/BridgetPhetasy/status/1818015936580055118
It can't be demonstrated any better than this. Browbeating people as if they're kindergartners, but doing it passive-aggressively so you can cry and get them in trouble if they talk back to you.
If there are any questions asked, there are obvious right and wrong answers, with the threat of "telling on you" if you give the wrong one.
More options
Context Copy link
Soothing, nurturing euphemisms. Environments in which dissent is prohibited and the word of ethnic and sexual minorities must be accepted without question (provided they are orthodox in their opinions) are referred to as "safe spaces". The move to instate an intellectual monoculture in which heretics are shunned and sexual and ethnic minorities are systematically elevated over other groups is referred to as "diversity, equity and inclusion". Maoist struggle sessions are described as "accountability culture". Profoundly unpopular policies such as housing male rapists in women's prisons or performing mastectomies on female teenagers are made more palatable with emotionally manipulative thought-terminating clichés like "protect trans kids". Mastectomies, penectomies, vaginoplasties and hormones are collectively referred to as "gender-affirming care".
I looked up "soothing, nurturing euphemisms" and got "rest your mind," "take a moment," "breathe easy," "unwind," "decompress," "let go," "find your center," "peaceful pause," "quiet time," "soothe your soul," "gentle transition," "calm your nerves," "ease into relaxation," "soft landing," and "tranquil space." If the claim is that men don't use these phrases, I find that dubious.
Additionally, I don't consider definitions of environments, moves and policies to be a part of defining language.
The only kind of man I can imagine routinely using these phrases is a yoga instructor, therapist or psychiatrist. Unsurprisingly, men represent only 28%, 24% and 21% of those professions, respectively.
More options
Context Copy link
When I try to imagine a man regularly using those phrases, what comes to mind is either the kind of modern psychoanalyst that is known to be mostly visited by women, or someone who spends his time nearly exclusively in the company of women.
The first third of the list is somewhat unisex, but the latter two sound like they're straight out of the "female memes" tiktok channel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You seem to be asking a lot of questions here but not contributing your own thoughts.
What do you think feminine language might be? Can you steelwoman it for us?
I don't think I can successfully steelman an argument if I don't know the OP's argument, but I will try. It'll just be a lot of assumptions, which I'm not a fan of.
The position is that there are two binary expressions of gender, which masculine and feminine, and therefore there are two categories of language corresponding. Additionally, the correct expression of this binary is the Western definition of masculinity and femininity.
This is natural; two completely different species attempting to communicate with eachother naturally will have separate languages, complete with their own vocabulary, grammar, connotations and implications. Since virtually all first world countries are Western, it shows that the Western definition of masculinity and femininity is the most successful, and therefore accurate, definition.
If we follow the examples of the Western definition of masculinity and femininity, then, we can assume what OP means by feminine language is language that is "collective, random, accommodating, passive, vulnerable, emotional, fragile, small, dependent, intuitive, submissive" and "tactful", among others.
Now, seeing as I have seen a fair share of men identifying with the Western definition of masculine and use language that is random, passive, emotional, fragile and tactful, then that language can't be exclusively feminine then. And if there is no exclusivity to the language and both elements can be included with one another, then the definitions of "feminine language" have become so vague as to render the whole notion non-existent.
That's a pretty good steelman, but you are implying motive that isn't necessary. Also there's only the one species, humans. Anyway I can't speak for the op of course, but I determine masculine and feminine language based on the western understanding of the gender binary not because the west is the best (although it is) but because I am in the west. In Japan or Taiwan I use different language, or look stupid when I snort at some guy going on about flowers.
Re the species thing, language is a tool for communicating, and in the west until very recently you had a zeitgeist which allowed people to communicate using shared metaphors and idioms built up over thousands of years of history and stories and memes. The idea that aggressive, direct language is masculine and passive gentle language is feminine is a very old one and has never fully restricted the language of men or women except in certain specific, usually formal instances. That has never made it useless - in fact it has made it more useful, as we can have feminine men and masculine women. Parts of Western society have tried to restrict their members' language, because they believe it is in the best interests of the members to adhere to their gender, but it has never applied to the language as a whole.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link