site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   38882 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 24, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I found several parts of the article weirdly at odds with common sense interpretation.

This sentence, of Karl Popper:

Popper, in his sweepingly influential 1945 book The Open Society and Its Enemies, denounced the idea of national community entirely, labeling it as disastrous “anti-humanitarian propaganda” and smearing anyone who dared cherish as special his own homeland and history as a dangerous “racialist.”

...is frankly bizarre. Popper did not denounce national community entirely, and didn't imagine any sort of patriotism as "racialist." He did argue against tribalism and extreme nationalism, but that's hardly the same thing. He opposed totalitarianism, yes, and national ideologies when they justified xenophobia or authoritarianism. He did question when national pride became linked to racial superiority or exclusion, but the book referred to was published in 1945!

Yes, I have no idea why the author is trying to bring Popper into this. It does not help the argument being made. Popper would disagree with his theory of history having a "long 20th century". Popper would also reject a zealous anti-fascism crusade. His "paradox of tolerance" would in fact have you tolerate Fascists until they throw the first punch, and not tolerate our current brand of anti-Fascists because of their demand that we're not allowed to hear the argument of Fascists ("they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols"). This isn't some weird reversal of meaning, as much of The Open Society is dedicated to going after Marxists, not Fascists. Marxists that were at the time quite happy to use the language of opposing Fascism to install their regimes across Eastern Europe.

There's no need for these complicated models of who's meant to be "open" or "closed". That just gets you stuck in a doom loop of why "open" institutions seem to love "closed" stuff as long as the closed stuff looks left-wing. The situation is more easily modelled as left-wing institutions being biased in favour of left-wing policies regardless of what those policies are.

Edit: Also how do you mention zealous self-professed anti-Fascism without mentioning that Russia's claimed reason for invading Ukraine is a hysterical accusation of Fascism directed at the Ukrainian government? Then again, this is a weird contradiction that nobody ever wants to notice. Neither those who support the current thing, who have the uncomfortable job of trying to distance themselves from the wrong kind of anti-fascist, or those opposed to the current thing, because it makes Russia look like it suffers from the exact same derangement as the west.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

This is clearly an advocacy for European-style hate speech laws. No doubt my speech should be considered "incitement to intolerance" and criminal according to Karl Popper. I'll add here that Popper is Jewish, so there's an ethnic, self-serving undercurrent to his demand for criminalizing incitement to intolerance. Of course a foreigner going to a foreign land is going to demand the people who live in that country are tolerant of people like him. He doesn't have their best interests at heart.

I would agree it's ambiguous if Popper would support antifa, although Popper himself engaged in street violence as a Marxist in Vienna in 1919. Preaches Marxism in Austria, then immigrates to Britain and preaches the Open Society. Many such cases.

When Popper says intolerance here, he means intolerance of disagreement, not hate speech. Hence "but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols". This isn't just random padding but Popper is describing what exactly is the difference between what he views as tolerance and intolerance. And it has nothing to do with hate speech. In his view an intolerant philosophy is one that:

  • Rejects rational argument
  • Rejects all criticism as illegitimate
  • Advocates violence against opponents
  • Aims to suppress other philosophies

That progressives decide to misconstrue this to make themselves the benefactors of the paradox is their fault, not Popper's. He'd recognise a desire to suppress whatever is deemed to be "hate speech" as intolerant, rather than those accused of hate speech.

Edit: Looks like this was already pointed out below.

Popper's analysis was centered on critique of exclusionary racialism, motivated by Nazism. He considered that to be intolerant. He is supporting outlawing that perspective as Intolerant.

The idea he would be on the side of racial nationalists for having a right to free speech, and against European hate speech laws, is not at all supported by the text.

No, Popper's analysis is centred on critique of Plato and historicism, the idea that history is controlled by historical laws that can be used to predict the future. He links racialism to this as a theory of history that proposes that a certain race is destined to inherit the Earth, but it's not centred on this.

It's pretty clear that racialism falls ideologically under "intolerant" according to Popper, and certainly according to the prevailing political understanding.

Popper's writing certainly suggests he would support suppressing racialism in order to preserve tolerance.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats