site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   40512 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.

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.

This is clearly an advocacy for European-style hate speech laws.

This must be the famous "horseshoe theory" I've been hearing so much about. You're literally taking the anti-racist hate-speech-law-enjoyer bastardization of what Popper said, and going "yup! that's what he meant", when he was saying the polar opposite. The words you quote yourself contradict your interpretation:

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.

He's talking about people who would shut off rational debate, not people arguing for a national community. If he's arguing for suppressing anyone, it's advocates of hate speech laws.

Yes, and leftists accuse people like me (and others on the DR) of doing that all the time. It's easy to just accuse your opponent of "not being prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument." You are just avoiding this part of the quote, which is the most unambiguous part:

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.

"Incitement to tolerance" is exactly European-style hate speech laws.

Yes, and leftists accuse people like me (and others on the DR) of doing that all the time.

And what is Popper supposed to do about that?

Don't get me wrong, I think liberals were writing checks they couldn't cash (they were assuming they will always win a rational argument, and therefore won't need suppression as long as they can debate), but that's another thing than outright advocating for banning specific positions, which is what you're accusing them of.

You are just avoiding this part of the quote, which is the most unambiguous part:

I disagree that it's unambiguous, "intolerance" can mean a lot of things. "Not being prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument" is a lot more descriptive, and therefore more strict, which makes it a lot harder to accuse your opponent of.

And what is Popper supposed to do about that?

What Popper is doing is pathologizing criticism of the outgroup, except for his own outgroup. This has been the bedrock of post-WWII moral consensus. It's the foundation of Critical Theory and the study of The Authoritarian Personality.

The syllogism is foundational to Critical Theory: racism and antisemitism is a psychopathology with no rational basis (note this is not proven, it's just taken as an unassailable assumption). So any engagement in that behavior is ipso facto irrational. So if you criminalize "irrational intolerance" you are criminalizing racism and anti-semitism. Although Popper suggests the risk of violence from "intolerance" he is unequivocally advocating for criminalizing "incitement of intolerance." He says this directly, he's not saying to only criminalize intolerance if it's physically violent.

It directly follows from Popper and Critical Theory that Gentiles criticizing Jewish culture and morality is a psychopathology and intolerant, whereas Jews criticizing Gentile culture and morality is rational and preaching tolerance.

"We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law." Those are his words.

Popper is pretty much as opposite a Critical Theorist as it's possible to be. He's a frequent source for arguments against Critical Theory, even.

The Authoritarian Personality is not at all far from Popper, it also relates anti-authoritarianism to anti-nativism and proposes those emotions as threatening.

Using a book that was not written by Popper, or referring to anything written by Popper, to figure out what Popper thinks is a bad idea. Adorno is not Popper.

Both relate anti-authoritarianism to anti-nativism. Do you think Popper would support the political system allowing a racialist movement a public platform, to organize and achieve political power? He clearly wouldn't, the idea that the Paradox of Intolerance means he would be on the side of the political rights of the racialists against antifa is absurd. Antifa has a better reading of it than you do. Not to say he would necessarily support BLM riots or whatever. But he is motivated to suppress racialism just like Adorno.

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