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 -
Ever since I first read The Selfish Gene I have been fascinated by the idea of a "cognitive ecology". That is the concept of ideas themselves as organisms that breed/evolve. That ideas themselves could be described as "predatory" or "symbiotic". That different ideas might vary in their evolutionary fitness and be specially adapted to different information environments, or to fill an "ecological niche".
With this in mind, what Hlinkians such as @Dean and @FCfromSSC appear to be describing is a Taxonomical Ranking of ideologies with "International Socialist" (Communists), "National Socialist" (Nazis/Fascists), and "Intersectional Progressivism" all as Species within the Genus "Rousseauidae" which itself resides within the Family "Western Enlightenment".
While it may be reasonable to claim that this Taxonomical model isn't "a good way of dividing up different ideologies." or that "it's just something Hlynka latched onto because it seemed like a good way of putting all his enemies onto one side" I do not think that it is reasonable to call it "incoherent". Besides, it being "bad" is just like your opinion man.
I think that the issue a lot of people here had (have?) with Hlinka and his ideas is that he essentially presented an "outside context problem". His politics weren't incoherent as much as they were Alien.
I was actually just thinking about this in the context of @OliveTapenade's comment on @KulakRevolt in the Snow White thread last week. Where one extolls "rejecting modernity" "embracing violence" from a comfortable office the other talks about that time he surreptitiously pulled a gun on a police officer durring a traffic stop while praying to avoid violence. The two might as well have come from different planets.
Even though they are both describing the same general category of behaviour, the symbolic role that violence plays in their model of the world is radically different. There are many ways to cash out what that means in practice - for one, for Kulak, violence in itself represents a kind of success, a triumph over our sheepish instincts, whereas for the other, violence in itself is a failure, an undesired last resort that always carries a terrible cost. Either way, it means that the worldviews just don't translate into each other neatly. The whole world of moral assumptions around, say, Orestes choosing to engage in retributive violence to avenge his father is invisible and alien to the modern reactionary.
Violence is an extreme example, but I daresay there are similar clashing worldviews in other politics. Probably the one I've run into most often today is the concept of revolution, where even though two people may both be talking about the overthrow and replacement of a particular political establishment, the invisible worlds of assumptions around it are so divergent as to almost untranslatable.
At risk of spiderman-pointing, your objection was known within nietzscheanism since Nietzsche himself, who had read the original texts a whole lot. He argued that the greeks extolled restraint because they were so virile and considered that the natural state of things.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Taxonomical Ranking of Ideologies... I like that metaphor. Thank ye.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link