site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 27, 2025

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.

5
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In the spirit of continuing last weeks discussion, and the suggestion by @georgioz to define an exonym like Neoliberalism versus one that is more divisive such as fascism.  The term "neoliberal" was first used as a pejorative term by the socialist left to describe US economic policy as far back as the 1930's, however, its was quickly defined in 1951 by Milton Friedman arguably the best known neoliberal, who proudly took the definition and ran with it, which has continued to the current day. This has not stopped it from being used, primarily by the left as a slur--some prose examples are Cornell West calling Ta'Nehisi Coates a neoliberal for his lack of criticism of wall street. To me, there are 5 key features of a neoliberal, they are as follows:

  1. Emphasis of economics over social policy
  2. Promotion of free market and trickle down economics
  3. Encouragement of free international trade through trade agreements
  4. Support for Subsidies for products, commodities or sectors of the economy deemed valuable or future forward
  5. Support for bailouts for companies deemed "too big to fail" in order to keep the economic machine running

Some studies have indicated that those describing themselves as neoliberal tend to score higher in areas such as self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-reliance, but have poorer health outcomes. Similar to the term "capitalist" which also was used as a slur by the socialist left for those interested in free trade and private profits, it was adopted to describe those who were unapologetically "pro-business", specifically large business and unfettered economic growth through almost any means possible.

I would argue that neoliberal has more meaning than some of the terms we discussed last week because its proponents have actively adopted it and have proudly worn the label for decades. More importantly, the vast majority of both proponents and detractors would largely agree on its definition, while other terms like woke, fascist, etc are more commonly used as a slur than a self descriptor, thus have had significant "definition creep".

What are your thoughts?

Hmm. Can you remind me of the point being made here? You're trying to differentiate neoliberal as an exonym from woke because people accept the label neoliberal but not woke? If that's the case then suppose nothing at all changes about the population, you still have people who believe and espouse every bit of this cluster's beliefs but refuse to accept any label. These neoliberals were highly related, constantly quoting each other and repeating each other's arguments. When you met someone who was in favor of one of these policies you knew with a 95% chance they'd support all the other policies but they just insisted there was no legitimate way to refer to their memeplex. What would you do then? Until we can square that circle I'm not sure what the point of the comparison is or even what your point is. If woke isn't meaningful then what can I call the highly correlated cluster of beliefs?

On the level of criticism of your definition of neoliberal I think you have some sneer phrases baked in. Few like to be associated with the phrase "trickle down" preferring something like supply side policies. "Too big to fail" also has some negative connotations. A neoliberal would say it was a policy failure to let banks become too big to fail but bailouts were still the prudent option given the circumstances, truncating it to that is ignoring important parts of their understanding of the events and their real concern for moral hazard. Neoliberal tends to approximately map to neoclassical economics, basically Adam Smith but with modern economic modeling.

Wait wtf, you’re on here? :marseygasp:

I'm surprised you're surprised, whoever you are