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.
I would not hold my breath, yet. Wokeness thrived under the first Trump presidency, and I would not discount his ability to energize his enemies again.
Wokeness flourished when it was viewed as the inevitable stymied by a fraud, the will of the changing demographic majority-minority populace frustrated by the last gasp of white rage. That framing allowed white progressives to lead black progressive (women) by the nose, trotting out blacks as shields to block criticism of wokeness. The minority support of trump upends this entire argument, making it clear that wokeness was not supporting the preferences of the inevitable majority.
There are plenty of other reasons, in particular ZIRP ending and the fact that DEI policies neither improved bottom line nor stopped activist screeching. Nevertheless the vanguardist progressives have lost their colors. They have no leg to stand on, and barring a cogent minority voice emerging from a massive race scandal, wokeism has lost its merit.
Unfortunately, my view from the ground here in blue country is that people are extremely resistant to absorbing this particular truth, no matter how many numbers are thrown at them.
Harris lost 15m biden voters because she was too cosy with Cheneys? Is this the 'democrats weren't woke enough, so their supporters stayed home' argument? Democrats needed to be more woke, promise more DEI positions, legally enshrine black representation, force a ceasefire on Israel (but not Hamas). If the dems did that, then the army of disappointed minority socialists would feel welcome in the now sufficiently progressive democrats?
Sounds just like the DSA meetings I attended in college. Rooms full of white (literal) autists and their racial adjacents (asian autists, latino autists, tranny autists, black autists, white progressives) theorycrafting about the hidden socialists eager for the revolution. In your neck of deep blue county are there people of working class values there, or is it primarily class aspirants?
I live in a deep blue enclave of a blood red region, and what I saw is that yes, she did alienate left wing voters by not running hard to the left. Her prosecutorial history in California and her stance on Gaza were both highly unpopular among the University set.
She simultaneously alienated centrists and and squishy Republicans by running too hard to the left, but on different topics. Trans stuff, DEI, and gun laws all came up when talking to people outside the boundary.
It seems like she was uniquely bad at activating her base, but also rallied her opposition.
Did they stay home instead of voting? And were they in significant enough numbers to move the needle were they to turn out? I have very lefty friends telling me that supporting Gaza would have won Harris Michigan and North Carolina (I don't understand this one) for (((reasons -ok jew hate))), and that defund the police backlash will blow over once the social programs start driving down crime, winning over Pennsylvania and Geoegia. In their view this would have given her the popular vote by increasing turnout across the blue strongholds, and flipped the key battleground states. This seems too deep in the woods for me as an external observer, but at the very least it seems that my lefty pals have retreated deeper into their shaky mottes, even as more normies are ok talking openly about how theres too many ugly dudes in dresses talking shit about kids.
I haven't really pressed, but I get the impression that a significant number of them didn't actually go out and vote. They all talked like they didn't want to participate in a Harris win, but assumed it was fait accompli.
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