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 -
EDIT: I no longer endorse this post. USA Today and NPR for Northern, Central and Eastern Kentucky have both run stories that confirm that the Jackson, Kentucky NWS office was staffed the night of the tornado:
I still believe it is irresponsible to leave offices unstaffed, even if there is some ability to move neighboring employees around when they're expecting storms, but this is much less bad than I initially believed. I think I'm going to take a break from the Motte for a bit. I do love this community, but I have not been doing a very good job contributing to it.
On May 15th, the New York Times ran a story about how DOGE cuts had left parts of Eastern Kentucky vulnerable while it was under moderate threats for extreme weather:This morning, May 17th, it became apparent that eastern Kentucky had been hit by an overnight tornado that killed dozens.I was honestly speechless when I read that.This is what London, Kentucky looks like after the tornado. To quote someone who put it much more eloquently than I can:My political stance has been evolving, but I'd describe myself as a state capacity libertarian.To me disaster preparedness and relief are obvious, bread and butter, parts of the federal government. Sure we do stupid, wasteful things like give people flood insurance that lets them build and rebuild houses in the same vulnerable spot over and over again, when we should probably just heavily incentivize them to rebuild in a less risky area. Sure, with any given disaster there's going to be criticisms about how Biden did this or Bush did that. But I've always felt mostly positive about my tax dollars that go to disaster relief and preparedness.I've had a growing sense of unease over the last few months as I saw reports of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announcing Trump administration plans to end FEMA, and reports about National Weather Service cuts back in April. I'm gutted that the easy predictions of these moves leading to unnecessary deaths has come true.A part of me had hoped that Trump and Musk's Department of Government Efficiency would cut a lot of genuinely unnecessary spending from the government. When it was drag shows in Ecuador, even I as a rather Trump-skeptical person could admit that even a broken clock is right twice a day. But it was also clear to me that they were cutting with a chainsaw, not a scalpel. The images of Elon waving a chainsaw at CPAC feel a lot more hollow now. The man has blood on his hands. 27 people are dead in Kentucky because DOGE and Trump thought that it was "more efficient" to just let people die, instead of keeping overnight forecasters on staff.Back in 2020, FEMA estimated the value of a statistical life at $7,500,000. By that standard, when doing the cost-benefit analysis the government bean counters are supposed to value 27 deaths as a loss of $202.5 million. I wonder how much it costs the government to staff permanent overnight forecasters in eastern Kentucky?Relatedly, the site rewrite's been put on ice: https://beta.weather.gov/
For anyone who used it, was it any good, or was it just the usual heavy-ass create-react-app mess that required a modern browser and broadband connection to even run?
Edit: Interestingly it seems to be open source, and also seems to have been kind inactive since late 2024 even before any Dogeing may have taken place. I could imagine that this project was already on the way out since then. https://github.com/weather-gov/weather.gov/graphs/contributors
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A: What evidence is there that any/some/all of the dead died because there was no overnight forecaster? I checked the stats for 2023, a good Biden year, and there were 87 dead from tornadoes that year, including 23 from a single storm. 27 doesn’t seem wildly out of line with those numbers.
B: Was the NWS mandated to cut permanent overnight forecasters, or did they choose to cut that position to save other preferred bureaucratic spending priorities, or did they just go straight to malicious compliance and make the worst possible cuts?
C: Did the former overnight forecaster just take a buyout, possibly? You can’t force people to stick around on the job, and I wouldn’t be surprised if NWS offices have gone without permanent forecasters for a while in the past.
D: How many NWS offices surround the Jackson office’s area of responsibility? While tornadoes are notoriously localized and unpredictable, if the permanent forecaster has been gone for longer than a week or so, it seems like any serious agency would have taken steps to get as much forecasting ability as possible from other supporting offices.
E: At a minimum, the following:
Does not strike me as the sort of phrasing used by someone who is simply expressing scientific concerns without fear or favor.
This is a fair question, and the same basic point was raised by /u/meduka. I agree that one storm is not conclusive. We will need to see the long run trends before my pronouncement is rigorously defensible.
Your other questions are ones I do not currently have an answer for. I am trying to see what data is available on this topic.
I don't fully endorse what Rebekah Jones of Mesoscale News said in the full piece I linked. I just thought that the part I quoted did a better job than I could have laying things out, and I didn't see the point in reinventing the wheel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To be clear, I do applaud you for writing this. It takes some genuinely uncommon courage to admit to a mistake, and it speaks well of your character to do so. No one's immune to being mislead or making error, and I've personally made worse (and dumber) mistakes, including in this forum.
So to the extent I'm making commentary, this is to comment on the Mescales News et all, with an emphasis on the et all. This isn't even the first time people have accused DOGE of killing people via tornado, falsely. Lest I be called out for nutpicking, today, a sitting federal senator accused Trump and DOGE of killing at least two sailors; accusations that DOGE cuts and the Shelton Snowlikes were the real cause of AA5342 or MedJets 056 were endemic even as it became clearer and clearer that it wasn't and couldn't have been. Nor is this specific to Trump: Abbott murdered migrants [even if]https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/13/us/us-mexico-border-drowned-migrants) he needed a time machine to do it, and that's just the one that's been discussed here.
It's clear that they don't really 'believe' it, to the extent someone who worked for Vox can be said to 'believe' anything, but I think that's besides the point. They don't believe the truth, either! That's not what their job is, and even if they're lying because their mouths are moving, you can't assume that anything bad is literally always wrong.
((Going back to the question of Being Wrong, I nearly started writing a bit on the Qatar AF1 donation, and while some of the initial reporting was wrong, not enough of it was for what I wrote to be worth posting.))
There's a bigger question of how we got here, to this. I'm tempted, as always, to point to Palin, where between actions and lawsuits the punchline was written years before Very Rarely Lies was -- Trump or DOGE might well try to sue here, but everyone and their dog (and insurance company) knows that they won't and can't win. Maybe I'm just drawing too big a contrast from previous variants, either on the right or left, where there was at least some motion around hyperbole or figure of speech or schizophrenia, maybe I just missed some of the more clear examples back then.
((Something something USS Maine?))
But this should matter! It's a problem for people like you or I that we have to dig twenty layers deep to find any discussion of Noem's quote that doesn't bury the actual lead -- that the Trump admin is considering whether FEMA's cause could be better served by state-operated grants, rather than just burning the entire concept of disaster response like an ostrich. It's not our fault if we can't tell a hundred percent of the time when facing off against an entire industry that has optimized itself to be persuasive.
But fault's got nothing to do with it.
More options
Context Copy link
Best of luck with your siesta!
Don't be ashamed of it in the least. It truly can be for the best. Focus on your family, friends, or just take the opportunity to do some half-days of volunteer work improving your community. Even if it's as simply as helping clean up a graveyard with others, it can really help get one's head out of all-politics-all-the-time mindsets.
More options
Context Copy link
The fallacy here is the assumption that in the counterfactual world where DOGE didn't cut these positions, the death toll would be (greatly?) reduced. The very blurb you quote suggests that in the best case a full time overnight forecaster provides a few minutes of heads-up via the emergency alert system. NOAA reports around 50-100 fatalities from tornados per year, with some outliers during extreme weather conditions. If we see an enduring spike in fatalities through 2025 and into 2026 and 2027, that would be evidence for your hypothesis. As of now, I'd say it's too early to tell.
How many deaths would there have been in Kentucky if there weren't Weather Service cuts? It seems impossible to know for sure. I couldn't find any information on whether an emergency alert was sent out in Kentucky (though I didn't look very hard) but if one wanted to make a case for these cut positions being important (rather than just accepting a statement from the Weather Service union) you'd want to dig up some data regarding how many tornados are "typically" caught -- and how quickly -- pre and post cuts to quantify the effectiveness of these local overnight forecaster positions.
I'm strongly anti-safetyist. The optimal number of yearly tornado deaths is not zero. The government could obviously reduce tornado deaths to zero if this outcome was prioritized at all costs. We acknowledge that there are diminishing returns and don't invest the resources to drive tornado deaths to zero. It seems extremely unlikely to me that the current resource distribution is optimal, though plausibly it's in a local minimum and moving out of it will cause some amount of pain.
I'm in agreement with you here. That's why I brought up the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) calculations that the government uses. They're not beyond debate - I could certainly see arguments for raising or lowering the value from the $7.5 million it is set at, or using different statistics like Quality Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) that might come to different results. But they are a reasonable starting point for cost-benefit trade-off discussions, and they set a limit to how much money we're willing to throw at saving a life through government policies around things like disaster preparedness and response, healthcare, road safety, etc.
Even if the optimal number of yearly tornado deaths is not zero - if we were successfully reducing tornado deaths with advanced warnings at a reasonable cost tradeoff, and we just stopped doing that earlier this year, then I think there is a fair case to make for us going back to the way things were on this particular front. I recognize that I have not yet conclusively made the case for this, and I'm trying to take a step back and do a more thorough investigation of the trends and causes in tornado deaths to get a better handle on what is going on here.
Your point about my pronouncements being somewhat premature is well taken. I certainly agree that an enduring spike in tornado deaths through to 2027 would be better evidence of the position I have staked out. Though I think setting up the "natural experiment" in a way that we can be sure it is due to staffing cuts and not something else is kind of tricky. Probably, you would look at all tornado prone areas of the United States, see which ones had staffing cuts and which ones did not over a relevant time period and then look at the long run trends going back well before and well after the DOGE cuts. Once the data was in, you could make suggestive correlational arguments that wouldn't be the end of the discussion, but might be enough to convince someone that it was indeed a mistake.
All good points, and I have started to do some digging into the data.
I'm sure more information will emerge on this particular disaster, and I'm certainly willing to eat crow if more information emerges and I jumped the gun too early here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Two frames for the argument about less-skilled migration and similar supply-side tradeoffs
A thought inspired by this article on the UK's ConservativeHome. John Oxley's article criticises the Starmer administration for not saying how they are going to recruit British care workers to replace the immigrant care workers they are cutting visas for. Everyone agrees in principle that pay and conditions for care workers will need to improve to make this happen, and that this is all right and proper as long as the Magic Money Fairy pays for it.
Oxley writes about the problem from the perspective of money flows - if we want to pay care workers more, we will need to funnel money into care homes, either by increasing charges to residents (and therefore making Granny sell her house to pay for care), by raising taxes, or by cutting spending on other things.
I tend to prefer the flipped frame which focusses on the flow of goods and services. If we send British workers (and, in particular, physically healthy British workers with a good attitude - this mostly rules out the argument that better-paid care work would magically bring back all the people who have been claiming disability benefits since the pandemic) into care homes, then the work they are currently doing will not get done. In this frame the median voter will be poorer because their favourite restaurant disappears (people are wiping butts instead of waiting tables), they have to spend time in grubby shops, offices, schools and hospitals (people are wiping butts instead of cleaning), and they have to deal with more unexpected items in the bagging area (people are wiping butts instead of manning tills). The tax rises, spending cuts, or even deficit-induced inflation are just a way of making this impoverishment stick in a market economy.
Whichever frame you use, this doesn't answer the question - there could easily be costs of less-skilled migration which mean it is net-negative for the country. But both are ways of forcing you to confront the tradeoff. I prefer the real resources frame because it makes clear that the tradeoff is inexorable and there is no way out through financial jiggery-pokery.
Do Motteposters have a view on whether thinking about this type of question in terms of money or in terms of real resources is more helpful?
I personally prefer to think in terms of money as the abstraction helps me to reason more efficiently. However for teaching the common man the real resources framework is absolutely the way to go as that way you don't have to waste epicycles telling them why their objection they thought up in 20 seconds isn't gonna solve the issue.
More options
Context Copy link
I like your frame partly because it suggests useful ways of addressing the problem. (I don't intend this as a gotcha).
People are wiping butts instead of cleaning -> more robot vacuums / mops.
People are wiping butts instead of waiting tables -> more of those robots that carry food from the kitchen to the table + normalize selecting & paying for food using a ticket machine at the entrance as in Japan.
People are wiping butts instead of manning tills -> put more serious work into unmanned checkouts.
Most of these are not insoluble problems, they are problems that nobody was incentivized to solve.
My only worry would be that so much of our economy is purely financialised at this point that such an approach would neglect serious aspects of reality that matter. No idea if this is true.
I don't think this line of argument necessarily proves anything about the optimal number of semi-skilled or unskilled workers to have in a country. Clearly that number is above 0 (or you get reverse complementary task specialisation where skilled workers get moved into care work because the wages are get so high that productivity suffers in the long-run) and might depend a lot on how the generous the state is to recent migrant workers. The Qatari economy would probably not be better off if they deported all the South Asian construction workers (even if we were to assume they were entirely free economic agents rather than borderline indentured servants). What the balance is in any given country is just an object-level question you can't reason your way to an answer to.
More options
Context Copy link
Matthew Yglesias has a repeated line that the middle class should not be able to afford full-service dining (except as an occasional splurge purchase) in a country with a functioning labour market. He sees the market shift from low-end full-service restaurants to high-end fast-casual dining as (a) driven by rising low-end wages and (b) an entirely good thing. So the official rat-adjacent neoliberal shill position here is
I think this might have some truth to it, but there is an element of cultural choice involved. Some cultures have different expectations of "full-service dining" — I'm thinking of how American ones tend to push table turnover, whereas other countries expect to serve each table maybe once per evening.
But there is some reasonable bound on "how much time we spend on each other." One could total up "hours wiping butts" versus total hours worked and see that yes, having the median worker work 40 hours, 10 of which are spent wiping butts, is probably not sustainable. Maybe it'd be at 60 hour weeks, but I'd really prefer more leisure time. There are some real culture choices to be made about the relative merits of time spent on arts, capital investments (building stuff!), research, and medicine — is medicine an end, or just a means to it. It's honestly a pretty open question I'd love to see more debate on, rather than neoliberal "we can have it all" platitudes.
I suppose also that some historic cultures adopted senicide rather than spend time wiping (elderly) butts, although to my modern sensibilities that's rather abhorrent, but perhaps a bit understandable in resource-constrained situations.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't follow the argument? If a party of four goes to a full-service restaurant, I'd expect somewhere on the order of 1-2 hours of human time to be spent by restaurant staff on that party (between host, waiter, cooks, dishwashers, management, etc). Assuming that employees are ~1/3 of the cost of running a restaurant, and that the customers make the same wage as the restaurant staff, that's a per-person cost of 45 - 90 minutes of wages. Probably not something you want to do literally every day, but seems like it should be easily doable a couple times a week, not just as an "occasional splurge purchase".
Average American worker earns $1000/week for forty hours work, or $25/hr, which makes a restaurant meal for four priced out at average American wages under your numbers ~$90. Equivalent to raising the price of chilis to a steakhouse price.
Wait is Chili's not considered a full-service restaurant? Also that sounds about right for a Chili's (restaurant staff generally makes ~23-27/h here based on the help wanted signs I see in windows, probably on the upper end of that considering the selection effects, and $20pp sounds rightish for dinner out somewhere nonpretentious).
Chili's was the first restaurant I encountered that replaced ordering with a tablet at the table, and that was back in... 2012ish? There was still waitstaff to deliver the food and drinks, but they didn't do the ordering process and there was less attention overall.
It's closer to full service than Chipotle or Five Guys, but I wouldn't call it full-service in the old way either. Chili's is also directly competing with McDonald's now so that's interesting.
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
One other obvious technology solution would be to automate butt-wiping. I suspect there are fewer qualms about automating geriatric care versus infant care, too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But how will my body continue to function without drugs if I stop taking them?
Maybe quitting the infinite cheap labor pool cold turkey isn't the best or least painful way to get back to a functioning labor market with accurate price signals, shocks never feel good, but it's still better than continuing to slowly turn into South Africa.
Rising wages are an incentive to increase productivity. When did we stop wanting machines to do menial jobs and instead started to want miserable strangers to do them instead?
If you go cold turkey on benzos you run the risk of killing yourself because your body can't handle the stress. The question now is whether migrants are like benzos or, say, antihistamines.
But antihistamines don't work...oh! I see what you did there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's fundamentally a mistake to think about these foreign care workers as workers. They are not people who migrated in order to work, they are people who are working in order to migrate.
They are simply people who are desperate to move from poor countries to rich countries. The care worker visas were the only way for them to do that, which is why for some countries (Zimbabwe being the best example) there were ten dependent visas issued for every worker. All they needed to do is work for five years and then the whole family can get indefinite leave to remain, access to the British welfare state, the right to import even more relatives. At that point, there's no reason for them to continue working in care homes (or at all, really).
Now these absurdly large holes have finally been plugged, the Conservative government that introduced the visa removed the ability for migrants to bring along dependents, and the current Labour government abolished the visa route to new entrants (although those who previously came in can still work in the sector) and extended the time needed for indefinite leave to 10 years in most cases (we'll see how many exceptions they grant).
I personally am in favour of increasing wages (or at least allowing the market to do so) for care workers. Pensioners are far too wealthy in the UK. The care sector would allow some of that wealth to be transferred to younger, poorer people, allowing them to buy houses and start families. With fewer low-skilled immigrants, the welfare state bill will be less. If that means fewer waiters, so be it.
Most people don’t do everything “in order to work.” They work in order to live here, or raise their kids, or buy that new car, or whatever. What makes migration special?
That they are foreigners.
Okay, but is there an economic difference?
I think the problem is that:
Is the loss in social trust caused by ethnic diversity in general, or by specific high-crime ethnic groups? The high crime groups (ADOS blacks in the US, Jamaicans and Somalis in the UK, Arabs and Afghans in Continental Europe) did not get here through work-based legal immigration.
My impression is more that there is a somewhat indirect, but stable link between these two: If you're part of the elite, you usually already consider yourself more a cosmopolitan who just happens to life in this particular country. You have lots of elite friends from other countries, you have lived yourself in other countries. You profit from lower-class immigrant workers suppressing salaries. You should be able to live in the good part of wherever you are insulating yourself from most problems. All this together means is that you have a very strong positive disposition towards ethnic diversity. Any negative mention of any ethnic group except your own is frowned up on to such a degree that it is near-impossible to publicly acknowledge even obviously problematic minorities, it's always just specific people or at most this particular clan. Not being able to acknowledge a problem leads to that problem proliferating.
There is also the problem that some groups are simultaneously supplying useful cheap work, but are also high-crime. Some of this is even systematic, such as using legal low margin work companies as a front to do illegal side work which can range from merely supplemental to being the actual income stream. I think that's as usual a spectrum, with extreme cases such as east asian immigration at "great work, no crime, high willingness to fit in", the middle is something like east europeans "low-value work, often significant illegal side work, medium willingness to fit in" and the extreme other would be something like sub-saharan "very little work, income almost entirely illegal or from state support, no willingness to fit in". The middle groups are here for work, but still cause issues and some loss of trust, but just not as much.
The is not an accurate description of 21st century immigration to the UK from sub-Saharan Africa. Within working and middle-class London neighbourhoods (i.e. segregating by ability to make rent) the recent African immigrants are better neighbours than the whites, and are overrepresented in cheap private schools, parent groups demanding more rigorous curriculum in State schools, Christian churches, and the Conservative Party.
This is obfuscated by statistics which lump them together with Caribbean blacks (who are now an indigenous underclass with similar but less severe pathologies to ADOS blacks in the US) and Somalis (who are basically undesirable in every way).
What is going on here is that there are social problems caused by the bottom 50% of the population (primarily consuming more public services than you pay in taxes) and social problems caused by the bottom 2% of the population (like crime). It only takes a minimally selective immigration filter for the immigrants to cause less of the second kind of the problem than the natives do - Sub-Saharan immigrants in the UK passed that test, even under the ultra-permissive Blair regime. The groups that don't are the completely unfiltered ones - refugees and illegals. (FWIW, the stats aren't great but in the US "put food on the table without drawing hostile attention from the authorities" looks like it was a sufficient filter that your illegals were less likely to commit non-immigration crimes than a native population that is 15+% ADOS blacks).
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
Because our welfare system is set up in such a way that they only need to work for five years before being entitled to live off the taxpayer indefinitely. And the statistics suggest that, as low-skilled immigrants from third world countries, they are much more likely to end up doing so than say, Polish graduates.
That stat doesn’t say anything about the five year trick. Or about Poles. Wait, it’s not even limited to migrants! This is like using the African-American unemployment rate to say that black immigrants are actually planning to quit. That’s not true for the U.S. and I would like to see better data for the U.K.
But let’s assume that 10.7% of Pakistani migrants are in fact arriving, cleaning bedpans for five years, then quitting to live off the King’s largesse. Why aren’t native-born Brits doing the same thing? To me, that suggests it’s not actually a good deal for anyone raised to expect a first-world standard of living. That’s exactly the kind of arbitrage @MadMonzer is talking about.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You can think about them as wakalixes if you want - it doesn't change the tradeoff that if you eject the people doing work either someone else has to do the work (in place of what they are currently doing) or the work doesn't get done.
Labour-driven immigration is, regardless of the motives of the immigrant, fundamentally a commercial transaction with terms set by the host-country government on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Empirically, Singapore and the Gulf Arabs have demonstrated that you can offer low-skill immigrants much less favourable terms than the West does and still get takers.
After an attempt to fact-check your comment about Zimbabwe, the specific context of the UK care worker visa appears to be a furphy here. It looks like there was an order-of-magnitude drop in the number of care worker visas issued before the change to dependent visas, driven by a crackdown on outright fraudulent applications in late 2023. So this particular case wasn't choosing the wrong-side of a trade-off, it was failed implementation due to administrative incompetence. For anyone familiar with the UK Home Office, this is unsurprising. For anyone familiar with the Johnson-Sunak Conservative regime, this is also unsurprising.
More options
Context Copy link
That's only a white paper and will take at least until next year to pass into law. Currently rules are the same. Also there's a concept in UK common law called "legitimate expectation" where the migrants can argue that they had a legitimate expectation that they'd be granted ILR after 5 years on a visa and that influenced their decision to accept it so now that can't be changed unilaterally (much like how if I have a job contract with you you can't cut my salary unilaterally). They can apply for judicial review on the basis of legitimate expectation and will very likely win and there's even precedent for it: last time the government increased ILR length from 4 years to 5 years the people on the skilled worker visa at the time were able to win in high court.
In theory they could use a notwithstanding clause to eliminate the prospect of judicial review when passing a new immigration bill, but they are both incompetent and unserious, so they won’t. One of the good things about parliamentary sovereignty and no written constitution is that a simple majority can at least just pass a law that says “this ignores the ECHR, ignores any court judgment, and establishes no legal challenge to itself whatsoever” and it actually works.
More options
Context Copy link
One of the problems with UK immigration law is that substantive policy issues of general public concern that ought to be legislated are instead put into the Immigration Rules. This causes two problems:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am very frustrated at this $10M grant. I think I could do the part about "foundational research into the methodological challenges of existential risk forecasts, as well as applied research on estimating such risks, and on the identification of early warning signals" well, if not better. In fact I have been obsessing about that cluster of problems for the last several years. Yet I was rejected by the organization making the grant a few months ago. Feels bad man.
Why would they reject you? My impression was that forecasts were one of your big things?
The stated reason was that at the time we also had an emergency response team, which reportedly was less of a fit for forecasting specifically. The actual reason is complicated/less discernable, but I get the feeling that they took a look at me and said: nah.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry to hear, that does sound very frustrating. It does look like they have traditional academic prestige on their side, maybe that tipped the grant over to FRI. Did you apply for the same objective, or something else? Would you consider joining them so they do a good job?
I applied for an org that was 50% the same objective 50% emergency response. I am very unlikely to join FRI so they do a good job; if I quit my current thing I'm more likely to go into the private sector
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I stopped going to Starbucks when they changed their concealed carry policy years ago (2013). Still get Seattle's Best occasionally at restaurants when that's all they serve. Chick fil a is the only place I go for the hope of anything resembling service.
More options
Context Copy link
Starbucks is not a business I frequent- I'm a tea drinker and also can't bring myself to pay $3 for a drink and also just don't care for big globs of sugar that have some coffee added to them, maybe with a healthy dose of artificial colors and flavors. But they are, literally, everywhere. I can't avoid seeing starbuckses. And it seems like it varies- some of them have cute young women working there being friendly to customers, some of them have trannies being curt.
I am, however, very surprised that you expected much comment from a counter employee about something political involving the company. There's a decent chance she could be disciplined for speaking about it to a customer. There's also a good chance she'd been being bothered for months about it and thought the whole thing was stupid and was sick of hearing about it.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't really follow what the woman you met being obtuse has to do with anything. Surely, if there's a nation-wide strike and she wasn't part of it, she's by definition not representative of the average Starbucks employee?
More options
Context Copy link
She's probably been explicitly told by corporate not to comment on the matter.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know if your first question is meant to be rhetorical, but I'm going to assume it isn't.
I got to Starbucks about 2-4 times a month, depending on how much driving I'm doing on weekends. I can order from the app before I leave home, and by the time I arrive at the shop the drink will be ready for me. The only exception is their nitro cold brew, which I think the employees wait until you get there to pull to preserve drink quality. The employees pretty busy when I get there, but will respond with a "Have a nice day!" when I thank them for the drink. The seats in the café are almost always all occupied.
These are suburb Starbucks, and notably there's no other local coffee shops in the area. One of them is unionized, I have no idea about the others.
More options
Context Copy link
Why is this a post in the culture war thread? You went to a store that you had a negative predisposition towards, had an encounter with an employee who you considered rude and unattractive, a fact you decided to share for some inexplicable reason. You predictably were shunned because you came with the express purpose of not purchasing anything and wasting the service workers' time.
I have no idea why your insults or opinion that 'starbucks was a shit-ass place full of soulless NPCs' are at all relevant here, nor do I agree with your hastily drawn conclusions about supposed 'curiosity' not being rewarded. If you have to question the point of your post, perhaps that is a sign it does not belong.
In the spirit of frank and open discussion, what is your political ideology?
I suppose I'm a liberal.
More options
Context Copy link
could be wrong, but I seem to recall tagging that user as a darwin alt.
That would track with my instinct to not engage breezily. If you are Darwin buddy, hope you’re well
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So not to be rude but how did you appear to her? Perhaps she noticed something off about you as you did her, for example, an indicator of undersocialization or "I'm not a journalist". Were I this woman I'd think "why is random man here to talk about corporate politics (which I have nothing to do with) instead of being normal and purchasing drink?" This is one of many possibilities.
This reminds me of time I was confronted in the supermarket by a 4chan user. I simply commented they were out of vinegar and after pleasantries he goes on tirade about COVID, government manufacturing diseases, how gay people incubated AIDs and have many STDs, all while I give polite white person smile trying to avoid his company. He does not get hint (parallel) owing to undersocialization, which I assume from unkempt greasiness and ideological blinders, continuing even as we enter checkout line. Onlookers onlook in horror while I amusedly wait for bags to be checked, as I know the man from /pol/'s type and they do not.
I feel for the barista in this way, but perhaps I'm not privy to particulars of situation and assume too much. Still, consider me your barista.
More options
Context Copy link
Why would you expect a random employee to answer you honestly on a question that is obviously contentious with her employer and may get her fired if you are recording her or from management? Your "just for fun" is her job, and for a working class person can be very precarious. Retail workers are not dancing monkeys, especially when you weren't even going to buy anything or tip her!
I'd say the fact she treated you professionally is more than you had any right to expect, given your approach. She may well have looked at you and was judging YOUR intelligence for asking such a question right there in the open.
Welcome to Starbucks - we hate people who ask questions that might get us fired (and aren't even going to tip), seems like an entirely reasonable position.
Honestly you come off as being very entitled here. Did you even consider that if she did answer you and was reported she might get in trouble or lose her job, or that she might worry about that? Would that be worth sating your desire for an anthropological survey, with absolutely nothing to gain for her? Heck anthropologists at least brought shiny beads to gift their subjects!
As for Starbucks itself, it's overpriced but the benefit is as with all chains that you know roughly what you are going to get. The little Ethiopian coffee shop down the road is probably better, but may not have such a broad selection, is much more variable and harder to find.
In this economy? She can get a new, equivalent job tomorrow. Not a great job, but she already didn't have that.
There is simply a shortage of customer service workers compared to people wanting customer service. Yes, this means standards for friendliness to customers have declined. I'm personally ok with that and would rather the 'all business' model of customer service become standard(I have requested new waiters for being overly personal with the friendliness before), but lots of Americans aren't used to that.
More options
Context Copy link
LMAO how should she have treated me if not 'professionally'? If that was more than I had any right to expect, what should have been expected?
With hindsight, she arguably should have called a manager and had you ejected, photographed and banned from the store for bothering on-the-clock employees while not being a customer.
That’s hugely excessive. A slightly clunky conversation struck up at the wrong moment is not the same as harassment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For asking a question that you should have known if she answered may have got her fired? Back in my customer service days I'd have just rolled my eyes and ignored you, and called for the next person, as you had already said you didn't want to buy anything. Perfect plausible deniability for me. Then bitched about you to a colleague once you left. You'd probably make the "Can you believe what this customer did?" list when winding down after work. You may not have been at the top of the list. There are a lot of customers who do unbelievable things after all, but you'd probably have been on it.
To recap you walked into a retail establishment, to ask a contentious question about a labor dispute to a basic barista out loud in the open, where anyone could hear, and apparently did not consider that the barista would have been gambling that you weren't a snitch or that anyone overheard her, and expected her to answer. That is probably not your finest hour to put it mildly.
I don't think you thought through the consequences of what might have happened from her point of view. And therefore you are entitled to her scorn. That she kept it professional is to her credit. You are entitled to be treated professionally when ordering a latte or asking where they source their soy milk from. When you ask questions, the answers to which might get someone fired, you are off that reservation, and out on your own. She is not paid to answer those questions. It was rude of you to ask. Therefore rudeness back should be your expectation.
I don't necessarily reject any of your assertions prima facie but this is an absurd way to organize society. I was happy to buy a coffee and buy one for the employee, or one of her colleagues, for their candid take on current events. I am their neighbor, at least, on paper. This entire conversation is satanic.
Note that is not what you said in your OP! You never mentioned anything about telling her you were willing to offer anything in return.
"When I told her I wasn't necessarily interested in ordering anything, but was very much interested in her thoughts on the 'strike' et al she gave me a stare that made a cow look intelligent."
But you are not their neighbor. That implies they know you already. You are a stranger. A potential customer. This is their place of work, not a place to make friends. As an ex customer service worker myself I really want to stress this. People suck to deal with. The workers generally don't want to make friends with you. They want you to engage in the transaction that they are being paid for, so they can earn their money and go home. It is not their job to give you their take on current events about their business. Especially with the possibility their job is at risk.
If you want to reorganize society such that a Starbucks employee giving their honest opinion at work to a random customer, means they do not risk being fired for it, then go ahead and work on that, but note that still does not mean they have to engage with you on anything outside the service they are being paid to deliver to you. Your relationship is transactional. Nothing more. The barista is not your friend, she is not even an acquaintance. She sees hundreds of people every day. Some of whom are nice and some of whom are unpleasant. She likely just wants to get through her mind numbing shift as easily as possible.
If you want to talk to someone who is off duty and make that same offer, then you have a bit more leeway. They aren't on the clock, they are probably a bit more relaxed, not being measured by their productivity, not having other employees over their shoulder, so many customer service employees will be much more happy to give you the truth (though they may still be suspicious if you come across as a journalist in a situation where there is a national protest or something going on).
Oh my god dude she could have just said 'I'm not allowed to talk about it' or 'I'm really just here to do my job' but all your words words words don't erase the inhumanity of the fact that two 'normal' people can't talk anymore about current events because of...all the stuff you just said
Edit: I live down the street. I did put 'neighbor' in scare quotes because I anticipated pushback but this stung-out poor old gal works two or fewer miles away from my home. We're neighbors. Or at least we're 'supposed' to be.
Setting aside whether she might get fired, it is entirely human not to want to talk to random strangers about things at your job. Being a neighbor is just geographical proximity. Even is she lived next door she may not want to talk to you about anything and that is very human. Especially if she can detect the disdain in which you hold her.
If you want her to act as you think a neighbor should then you need to make an effort to not judge her like:
"almost comically short and fat, like a cube. Her hair was greasy, thin, obviously unwashed, and would've benefited from a cut some months ago. She was curt, bordering on rude, asking what I wanted. When I told her I wasn't necessarily interested in ordering anything, but was very much interested in her thoughts on the 'strike' et al she gave me a stare that made a cow look intelligent."
Is this how you describe the people you want to form a neighborly community with? Is this how you talk about them? Never once in your vent did you speculate that your neighbor maybe overworked and underpaid, that she might be working multiple jobs, that she might have a point in what she did, that perhaps she picked up on your immediate reaction to seeing her. You described her entirely in a negative fashion. You called her a soulless NPC.
Why should she act like a neighbor to you? Did you act like a neighbor to her? You didn't even buy a coffee at the place she works, you went out of entirely selfish reasons and on the very first time you met her, asked her a badly thought through question. You didn't start with small talk about the weather or any of the other socially acceptable ways we have of building rapport.
If you want to have a neighborly community, then you need to start treating people like your friendly neighbors. Not treating them like sources of information to satisfy your curiosity, going into their place of business with no intention of buying anything. You admitted below you should have at least bought something, so that is a start. You skipped over a whole bunch of steps in the making friendly neighbors dance, and then are confused when she doesn't treat you like one.
When a guy moves in next door, he is not automatically your friendly neighbor you can ask possibly difficult questions to, because of geography, you have to build that relationship before you ask "Hey, your employer is having a labor dispute, what is the real skinny on that real quick?" You invite him over for a bbq, you ask if you can help him move in, you lend him your lawnmower, tell him where the best bar is. We have social conventions and rules and structures for a reason. They are crucial in building relationships.
So make up your mind, was she a soulless dumb fat cow? Or was she a neighbor you want to build a real communal relationship with? If she read what you said about her, do you think it is likely to make her want to treat you more like a friendly neighbor or less likely?
Bro you are just a communist, in my humble opinion. There is nothing to do here. When you go to McDonald's in Denmark Ms Teen America takes your order with a smile and a wink. When I went to Starbucks to ask 'hey, how do you feel about this recent news' you give me interminable wordwall and the wage-slave gives me blank face
Edit: To illustrate my point there is a 'strung out old gal' working the counter at a gas station down the street from the Starbucks in question that I frequent. We're genuinely actual friends. She had my number. The other day her power went out and I went over to deliver a shitty old freezer box I had sitting around in my garage. That's neighbors.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair, this is not the case at all times and in all places. It generally corresponds with scale and culture, and is much more the case in a big-chain shop than it is the case in, say, a little tea shop in a small town.
Absolutely it can I agree. But even in a small tea shop in the Cotswolds if you go in, and ask them how the labor relations are between management and staff, after saying you don't want to buy anything, I'm not sure you'll get much of an answer.
Oh, yes. I meant the propensity for idle chat / relationship-forming, and the baseline emotional response to customers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But... you didn't?
More options
Context Copy link
But it's also understandable that employers don't want to be undermined by having any one of their employees act as impromptu spokesman for any cause, anytime, anywhere. Even the striking employees as a whole don't necessarily want that - remember how antiwork was basically destroyed by one bad interview?
I think it helps to consider people as having rights and responsibilities linked to the roles they play. When you are wearing a uniform and you are dealing with a customer, you are (like it or not) visibly representing the company and you are expected to do and not-do certain things. After work, it's different.
Then just smile and ask me if I'm planning to order something or not. Like don't go full NPC drone corpo 'I have nothing to say about that' and act inhuman. What happened to being neighborly. Perhaps I am old man yelling at clouds
Edit: But no I'm not. Just give me a cup of water. That's a new one for me, to be told they're not allowed to give out water.
For sure it sounds like she could have dealt with it more gracefully. I doubt that Starbucks is getting the best and brightest.
I also think it's the case for whatever reason that Americans seem to be much accepting about paring all relationships back to pure economics. I'm not sure why. Possibly because it's worked well so far. But I'm reminded of the way that in Japan falling below a certain level of politeness is just totally unacceptable no matter what, as is stuff like raising prices beyond the socially accepted level.
More options
Context Copy link
Have you considered that she may have simply not wanted to talk about it, or known much about it, and been leaning on approved phrasing from corporate to avoid having to talk about something she didn't want to?
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
You weren’t even a real customer, you didn’t buy anything! She could’ve told you to piss off and make space for paying customers. You could have been a journalist (honestly this is much more likely than the reality of you just being some guy who was curious), and if she was quoted or her store was mentioned in an article she could get in trouble with corporate. And who really wants to talk to a journalist at work anyway? Especially right at the start of a shift.
My opinion of the average current-year-plus-ten starbucks barista is not that high either, granted, but you were not helping yourself here. If you really wanted an answer, you should’ve ordered a small black coffee (or whatever) and asked your question while she was ringing you up.
Yeah, I should have just gotten a small black coffee and asked absentmindedly. I didn't do that because I didn't want to give Starbucks money, but that's what I should've done. Thumbs up
Genuine question: Are you on the spectrum?
He's permabanned. You shouldn't encourage alt-posting.
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
My guess is that due to whatever labour laws and corporate rules, they can do the shirt protest but can't talk about it with customers. She probably assumed you were some kind of spy from corporate trying to get her fired.
More options
Context Copy link
You started to ask her political questions at 9 in the morning. I don't generally get into the mood of talking to anyone for longer than a couple of sentences until it's 10 am or so. Some people are not morning people. On top of that, as others have pointed out, the questions that you asked her may be risky for her to answer. You also judged her appearance. Only internally to your own mind, sure, but it's possible that the judgment energy radiated out from you to her just like her 'fuck you' energy radiated from her to you. Who knows which came first.
More options
Context Copy link
Re: the not allowed to give out a cup of water, it’s likely related to some general ups and downs in their loitering policy drama over the past several years.
I don’t recall the ins and outs and may be getting timing wrong but basically around George Floyd, there was a lot of bad optics around not letting people loiter or use the bathroom without being paying customers. This was seen as racism and bad. But meanwhile there were a lot of people taking advantage of such open doors policies, and basically loitering junkies we’re driving away customers.
Not giving out free water is perfectly reasonable way to discourage freeloading loiterers who might disrupt the appeal of the space for paying customers.
If you let that policy happen via discretion you risk the cancel mob highlighting perceived inequity, and wage workers don’t want to get plastered on the internet for that shit.
Blanket ban is much safer for the establishment as well as the workers to have blanket policies like this.
15 years ago I worked at a fast food restaurant right next to a college bar and we had similar policy because otherwise drink college kids who spent no money filled up the place and interfered with the business
More options
Context Copy link
I am... less surprised at the pushback you have received than you are, but that's because I work in a retail adjacent industry I think. And I post more. Anyway I sympathise with your perspective, although I think it's a little outdated. Everyone is calling you rude and entitled, but from my perspective you have what seems to me the default attitude to retail of everyone gen x and older (and the occasional millenial and zoomer) - in any transaction there is a buyer and the seller - the buyer is there to buy something, the seller is there to sell something. Therefore, if the seller wants to sell their product, it is up to them to get the buyer to buy it. Whether they are angry, calm, crying, raging, male, female, black, white, gay, straight, trans, cis - if you want their money you have to convince them to give it to you. The buyer on the other hand, has one responsibility - to hand over the money required to purchase the good. That's it. They could talk entirely in profanity if they liked - as long as they pay, they get service.
Which is to say that yes you were being entitled, but it was precisely as entitled as Starbucks wanted their customers to feel until recently. (It was also as entitled as Starbucks wanted every visitor to feel for a few years there, but that was always madness.) Starbucks didn't become a household name, land a store on every corner and redesign the coffee industry because they made good coffee, everyone is aware of that, but few people ask the follow up 'why were they successful then?' Starbucks' runaway success was in large part due to the way they treated their staff - and a large part of that was their profit sharing type program that gave even the baristas and other part timers stock options. Having a stake in the success of the company, the baristas worked extra hard to convert customers into sales - aka they smiled even when they didn't feel like it. That tied the reliability and success of a corporate operation to the atmosphere and staff behaviour of a mom and pop outfit, and consumers went nuts for it. People want to feel like their presence is wanted and they will drink poisonous tar to feel it.
And I understand the people who feel it's duplicitous to pretend to be nice to someone you loathe or pretend to be happy when you feel like shit, but a) that's society and b) that's what they're being paid for, most people don't care if they grind the beans a particular way, they just want a cute girl or guy to smile when they get their coffee. And yes, maybe it's selfish to not want to worry about tailoring your behaviour to not upset some barista you'll never see again, but I think it is eminently more selfish - and entitled - to expect strangers to treat you like you belong in their Dunbar's group. Especially when you are being paid to be there and the stranger is paying you.
Buy something next time though lol.
I don’t get this. You know going into service adjacent industries that at least part of what you do is offer a service. It’s not a mystery, it’s not hidden in the fine print. There is no “surprise, we actually want you to make this experience as pleasant as possible.” And as such, as either the owner/manager of a place like that or a customer, I expect that you will perform a service and do so without being rude or acting like the job you were hired to do is a burden. If not acting like a spoiled child made to clean their bedroom is too hard for you, then don’t work in the service industry.
And furthermore I don’t think that the current year thing where employees are allowed to bring political and social issues, personal problems or anything else into the workplace is good. It’s a business. It is not your personal billboard for whatever pet cause you have. It’s not a place where personal problems should get in the way of getting the job done. Such things just get in the way. Leave it at home or talk to a therapist as needed, but the primary purpose of a job is to get the work done. It’s not your home, it’s not your friends, and it’s not your therapist’s office.
More options
Context Copy link
I worked at a large corporate coffee chain for a while, and the entire charm of the job was a series of short, easy, straightforward interactions. Someone wanted a mediocre but predictable latte and a smile. I would smile and make them a latte. It was positive and predictable for all concerned. Everyone was happiest during the rush phase of the day, when these small positive interactions happened in quick succession. Everyone was least happy during the slow part, when we had to engage in daily cleaning tasks like restrooms, mopping, drains, and sometimes odd customers who would try to chat about my ethnic background or something.
The interaction described above sounds quite unpleasant from the perspective of the worker, more than remaking a coffee. But, yeah, mostly it's because he isn't actually a customer.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In fairness, given your approach, it's possible she mistook you for a journalist.
I appreciate that I was just some pain in the ass she didn't want to deal with so she could go on with her day. We are all so used to that now that we don't even blink when someone is like 'hey, no, I'm really just curious and I'm happy to buy a coffee and buy you one too. I just have a few minutes to kill here," and the other party reacts like it's an obvious scam or (like that other intelligent fella said, @DradisPing) I was a corporate spy
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is interesting. It's well-written in the sense that it flows and sticks the landing, even though I agree with almost everyone who has commented that your behavior (and subsequent dismissal of this woman) were oddly tone-deaf to the way polite society works. And slightly, to my archaic worldview, ungallant. But that point has been made repeatedly--to the point where you invoked Satan no less--so I'll change tack.
In Japan I generally avoid Starbucks because I don't enjoy their simple black coffee, and I am not interested in all the milkshake-type drinks which are considerably more popular, as well as time-consuming to make. Thus I have found myself waiting in line for up to 15 minutes just to have hot beverage poured from urn to cup because the three people in front of me ordered the dessert drinks. Also, although I haven't been to a US convenience store in years, here at least the Family Mart coffee machine grinds the beans as you're standing there, and that's like a minute wait tops. This is a tedious preface to my point that, at least here, Starbucks workers are efficient, on-task, and professional--which is to say very good at customer-facing friendliness. Also often young and pretty (the males and the females). Yet I cannot imagine how I could ask your question without creating a shit storm of awkwardness. Unfortunately awkwardness is routinely expected from foreigners (in a society built around avoiding awkwardness) so anyone brave and reckless enough to interact with a foreigner would probably be unfazed. This wouldn't be a good thing, as they'd probably be equally unfazed if I suddenly took off my shirt in the shop and began applying deodorant to my armpits. "Foreigners, what can you expect?" etc. So I am probably routinely viewed, despite my best efforts, as a relatively tame chimpanzee by many. And chimps can suddenly lose it, as we know.
Your posts sometimes seem exasperated--with people, with the Motte. Because of this (in addition to your username) I have assumed you are drinking booze while posting. But maybe it's something else. General misanthropy? I'm not trying intentionally to be satanic.
I feel heard. So, thank you. Without obsequiousness that's just a genuine sigh of relief.
Are we talking about the same thing? I was uncouth, ungallant, imperious by imposing myself on that poor, unsuspecting Starbucks employee. I might as well have taken my shirt off and started swinging it around like 'Call me George, George of the jungle'.
But I'm not as exasperated with people or the Motte (although, gosh, I do feel like this used to be the place to get the news) as I am with the reality that the whole exchange was so...whatever it was. Gosh. Now I do feel bad for being so anthropologically autistic even if she wouldn't give me a cup of water
Mind my asking what your post was about before you deleted it?
It says "removed by moderator", not "deleted by user". Also, the user has been permanently banned, so he can't answer.
Oh thanks, I missed that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That Starbucks employee may have been a rude, incompetent blob. I wasn't there, and the nuances of the interaction get lost. Perhaps there is some element missing in your relating of the conversation that neither I nor others have grasped. It doesn't matter that much.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Recently from Slavoj Zizek: THE POPE IS DEAD, ANTI-CHRIST IS ALIVE AND KICKING
I'm curious what the actual (theistic) Christians here think of Zizek's "Christian atheism" and his conception of Christian love.
I don't expect Christians today to be lining up to join the local Communist Party. It is my view that, more often than not, actually-existing communist movements have been little more than a thin veneer of respectability over the ambitions of power-hungry sociopaths. But isn't there still a kernel of truth here? Isn't there something, as was articulated in last week's discussion, "quasi-communist" about Christianity? Is not the doctrinal communist ideal -- the universal fraternity of man, sacrifice for those who are in need, "the last shall be first" -- ultimately just an expression of universal Christian love? Should Christians not view communists as fellow travelers who are correct about certain fundamental principles, but misguided on method?
There is a certain basic paradox that presents itself when one begins to interrogate the concept of love: do you love me for who I am, substantially, in essentia, or do you love me for my qualities and properties? You say that you love me because I'm smart, because I'm funny, because I'm beautiful; but suppose that I were not smart, nor funny, nor beautiful. Would you still love me then?
Either horn of the dilemma presents an issue. If your love for your beloved is contingent on them possessing some particular quality, then you are liable to the charge that you don't really love the person: what you really love is that quality. You are a lover of intelligence, or humor, or beauty, but not of that particular person. But if you say that you would continue to love the person regardless of any qualities they possess whatsoever, even if they were stripped of all qualities and left only as a "bare particular", then it would seem that your choice is entirely arbitrary and without justification; for what could be motivating your choice if it is made in the absence of all qualities? And a baseless arbitrary choice cannot constitute love either. The conclusion we draw is that, if there is such a thing as "love" at all, it belongs to the domain of the unsayable.
Thus Zizek suggests that true love should be "cold" rather than "sentimental". Powerful sentiments suggest that one is fixated too strongly on the secondary qualities of the object, rather than the obligation of love proper. Love is seen to have an almost Kantian character: the bloom of pleasure is a stain on the perfect austerity of duty. Christ is then interpreted as the formal condition of possibility that both binds us to this duty and makes its realization conceivable; Christ must not be "made into a direct object of love who can compete with other objects", for otherwise "things can go terribly wrong". (In particular, it opens the door to transactional thinking; if He Himself told you that all of humanity was saved, but you alone were damned; would you still love him? Would you still love him even if he wasn't living up to "his end of the bargain"? An authentic conception of Christian love has to confront this possibility.)
I notice a parallel between the Christian's love for God and his faith in God. Your post is about the tension between loving an object for its properties, versus loving an object inherently (the latter I still maintain is quite meaningless). In faith, there is tension between believing a proposition because of evidence, versus believing a proposition inherently.
It's an old idea around these parts that Christians do not believe their religion. The Christian's behavior here is not really confusing. Professions of faith are tribal signals of group loyalty, not beliefs. But it would be wrong to ruminate on "the contradiction of belief" and ask about "is belief based on evidence" or "do people believe inherently?"
Likewise, "loving things for their properties" is just a different kind of thing than "tribal signals of loyalty." You're damned right I am loyal to my wife, what of it?
More options
Context Copy link
Agape and philia do not indicate different forms of love in this context. I know CS Lewis says this, but it ain’t so. It’s not something that Origen talks about when he distinguishes between agape and eros, and he definitely would have mentioned it. It isn’t mentioned in the earlier church fathers. Rather, in the context Zizek mentions, the words are used interchangeably. Imagine your girlfriend wants assurance that she is beautiful. “Am I beautiful? … I mean, you think I’m very pretty right? … Tell me I’m gorgeous again.” These are interchangeable within the context, even though there may be slight variations in the usage in colloquial speech.
Just going to quote from some papers on this. In speaking of love, Origen doesn’t even bring up philia, but compares Agape and Eros and concludes that even these two loves are interchangeable in scripture:
And from elsewhere:
As for wealth equality: Christ clearly abhors the “very rich”. Being “very rich” and ungiving damns a person, from my reading. God cares more about this than blasphemy. But we also have very clear and specific anti-equality statements. Someone tells Christ that his brother isn’t sharing the inheritance, and that he should make him share; Christ says that life is not about possessions and that he isn’t the Lord of that. Christ is the Lord of the Moral, not the lord of the specific cultural and legal rules that appear prudent to specific leaders to secure political wellbeing. He is the Lord of “help the poor”, not “no one should ever be poorer”. Or consider:
Zacchaeus was rich; he definitely had more than twice the average wage; yet he is only required to give half of his wages to the poor and to give reparation to anyone defrauded. Then he has full approval of God and is saved.
More importantly: the very context of the love statements makes a universal love impossible. Christ is telling his disciple to direct all of his love to the sheep. “Do you love me? Tend my sheep!” The sheep are the brothers, or in this case the younger novice Christian brothers, not random strangers. The strangers are those who do not matter at all. For instance, “If [a brother sins against you and] refuses to listen even to the church [telling him to repent in front of you], let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” You see Christ’s treatment of strangers with the Canaanite woman. It shouldn’t surprise us that these rules make sense in light of utility and game theory and psychology, if you believe in both God and science. Casting your love, a precious pearl, to random strangers, is the quickest way to waste your life and your love and to make the world worse. Consider —
This is when he tells his followers that they are being sent out “as lambs among wolves”. Now, if the Lord is the shepherd who lays down his life protecting his sheep from the wolves, then who are the wolves? The wolves aren’t sheep; the wolves are in the world; loving the world would be loving “wolves in sheep clothing”, and we have fairytales about that involving grandmas and the hood.
This is Christian love: judge whether someone is worthy if they receive you kindly or hear your wisdom; publicly shake dust off your feet as a statement against them if not; and then remember what your Lord says: their fate is worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. I do not know what happened in Christianity that the clear words and obvious meaning of the gospels are ignored. Does this sound like a hippy or something? Does this sound like spiritual William’s Syndrome? Does God want you to pollute your heart by throwing it at the feet of every evil person? Christianity is not a “text-first” religion but tradition first, true, but the tradition itself attests to the primacy and accuracy of the words. There are some ridiculous zero-day bugs that have infiltrated Christianity and made it “fake and gay”. But if you’re Christian you really do have to believe these words. God is love and He defines love in the teachings of His Son, so forget what you know about love and study the Son who knows more.
Further: as Origen and tradition attests, Christ is the bridegroom of our soul. In antiquity, if the bride is found to be spending her love on random men, she would be beaten, if not by her father then by her bridegroom; she may even be divorced on the grounds of adultery. When Origen wrote on Eros and Agape, it was when studying the Song of Songs, which is a sublimated erotic love poem about our soul longing for God. What does the Bride warn in the song? “O daughters of Jerusalem, I adjure you by the gazelles and does of the field: Do not arouse or awaken love until the time is right.” Otherwise: “The watchmen find me as they went about in the city; they beat me, they bruised me, they take away my veil, those watchmen of the walls.” To be more clear: if the Christian wastes the love reserved for “Christ and whom Christ wills” (your Christian community ie sheep), wouldn’t he discipline you? Just like He whipped those who abused and profaned the temple. Because now, your body is His temple; it belongs to Him; and in your body is your heart where the heavenly treasure resides. Okay, this was an allegorical aside, but whatever.
Now I agree that for a Christian, the “love for the cause” must be triumphant over everything. This is seen in Christ: he calls Peter satan when Peter warns Him against going to Jerusalem; he speaks up against elders; he disregards His relatives, and His own family becomes “those who hear the word and obey it”. But Zizek is wrong that the cause is universal love. It’s just not. “Universal love” is taking an idyllic stream and polluting it with Chernobyllic radioactive waste. We don’t love universally, but in accordance with the Love of the Universal Man.
As additional evidence for this, consider the Eucharist. You have to enjoy the Eucharist to have a part in Christ, to be a brother, to be saved perhaps. Only confirmed Christians in good standing could participate, and they had 2-3 years of training and catechesis before being confirmed, involving fasting and repentance and reading. We know this from Justin Martyr, some of the earliest Christian writings we have. This ritual is the only time a Christian sees the living Christ: the intimate shared brotherly meal becomes the real body and blood of Christ; it’s the real living Christ there, and being consumed. This tells you a lot. It’s not radically inclusive love, it’s radically exclusionary and private. At a time when anyone could participate in a Pagan feast, and when the Jews believed in national salvation, this was profoundly exclusionary and private. This was the dominant mode of Christian activity until the 300s which, in my opinion, should never have been altered.
Zizek says
This is not quite it. Christ did not love “humanity”: there are many who will see Christ and Christ will tell them He never knew them. Not “I have forgotten you”, not “you never knew me”. No; “I never knew you”. These are the “vessels of wrath tailored for destruction”. For a Christian, true love is this: a man laying down his life for his friends. Not only is this literally what Jesus says, but He literally does it on the Cross. How this happens, is actually never said by Christ; it is compared to Moses lifting up a serpent staff, that those who are bit by those sin-symbolic serpents may not die but live. That it magically absolves your sins upon belief is a satanic thought. But there are at least some things that are sure: Christ loved God that He spent his life learning from His youth. He spent his adulthood healing and teaching others despite guaranteeing His death. He is wrongfully charged for disobedience for misrepresenting scripture, and obediently assents to the sentence. He continues professing truth and love. As He suffered, He sung to Himself some of His favorite songs. He wants His tormentors forgiven by God before He dies. In very mysterious appearances, He returns again. He appears to Thomas in the upper room, like the upper room of the Eucharist, where Thomas touches His side, the same side from whence blood and water flowed. Did Thomas touch the bread turned body? Did Christ’s side flow out in wine turned blood, mixed with water as all wine was had in antiquity? I don’t know. It’s a mystery. I agree with Zizek that the material is immaterial.
Christ’s love is, essentially, conditional. It really is. There are some people He never even knew, let alone loved. Christ issues warnings, firm warnings, shocking warnings. He is filled with warnings. Before He sends sinners to an eternal fire, He curses them. If you do not believe this, you are not a Christian, and you’re something worse than an atheist, because you have seen His words and dispute that He said it or meant it. Why does Christ tell us these warnings if not to warn us? A better Christian movie is the Whale. It’s deeply, deeply Christian. The protagonist is saved by warnings to His soul and health, and also primarily due to love for His daughter. (“not giving thanks, nor seeking forgiveness for the sins of my soul, nor for all the souls numb, joyless and desolate on earth. But for her alone, whom I wholly give you.”)
Do you know who else was saved like this? Jonah! You know, with the whale. Is Jonah the sign of unconditional love? Did the Ninevites enjoy God’s unconditional love when they fasted (cattle and man alike) in sackcloth and ashes with only the hopeful possibility that God will have mercy on them? And who “comes in the sign of Jonah”? Who is it that says the sign of Jonah is the only sign He will provide “a wicked and adulterous generation”? It is the One who, “in the days of his flesh, offered up prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears, to God who was able to save him from death, and who was heard because of his fearful reverence — He was a son and learned obedience through what he suffered.”
A decent example: if every drug user could be saved by unconditional love, very few white people with loving mothers would be drug addicts. Do you know what would save them? If every time they did the drug, I beat the shit out of them to the point of death and told them I hated them. Sadly this is illegal. But it’s what God does to those whom He loves the most, like Job and Jonah. I have no doubt that if Christ saw the disciple whom He loved drinking too much poppy tea, that He would beat that wicked servant or at least kidnap Him into the desert for an extended 40 day retreat. And this would be love. True love are the true words “given by one Shepherd”, which are “like goads and like nails firmly fixed”. Thank God the yoke is easy.
I do not believe that God wants us to love God “in Himself”, for no contingent reason. I do not believe that there is such a thing as loving a thing outside of what the thing means to us. Love is biological and God designed biology. We love our fathers if they are fatherly, and you have no obligation to love them if they are not. Yet, we have no father on earth! We have a father in heaven who is perfectly fatherly, who “disciplines us for our good that we may share in sanctity”. And “we love because God first loved us”. Similarly, Jesus tells us to love our enemies not because they are human, but because we will be rewarded by God. Because He wants our love perfect, like our father’s love is perfect. Loving enemies is our spartan practice for perfection, and has nothing to do with any obligation that emanates from our enemy.
I’d say this is complicated. If we love Christ, even just as a “character”, and celebrate Him in social environments, and are evaluate by our peers with His law, then we will behave like Him. Which is probably the best way we can love like Christ. We can only understand more than this mysteriously, through statements like —
Notice, again, the focus on brothers. Indeed, the first name of the religion was the Brotherhood.
Incredible post, thanks for taking the time to write it all out. Do you write anywhere besides here?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Communism and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible because Christianity’s is individualistic. Every soul matters. Every soul is redeemable. There are no chosen people. Every person is worthy of god’s love.
These ideas are destructive to communism, which is a collectivist ideology. Christians are saying that you should love each other, and that people are all, each, valuable individuals—communism says you should love each other insofar as it serves the emergent gestalt that sits on top of it.
How to integrate this into a functioning society: hardcore individualistic ruthless capitalism is in tension with the morals of the religion. Christian ethics act as a governor which serves to prevent stuff like becoming a wage slave to Amazon, and aborting your children so you can keep working.
You need both of these things, although the “hardcore ruthless capitalism” I’m talking about is not so much a “thing” as it is the base state of human existence. You have the base individualism, free association, etc. and then are Christian morals on top of it to make it all work.
I think a communist would say that the opposite is true. To that extent the dichotomy of individualism and collectivism is just wordplay.
Every communist values the individual. That's why they want communism. More freedom. More liberty. More happiness. They see the individuals freedom impeded by capitalism and, outside of catholic communists, religion. If love for our fellow men were elevated above love for money or our preferred rendition of Abrahamic religion, then we could much sooner get together and work towards a global change for the betterment of humanity.
Instead we get Christians with proclamations of moral supremacy, because they believe in abstract logical concepts. Or capitalists with proclamations of factual supremacy, since they can allege to best predict the outcomes of society. Neglecting to mention that these outcomes are derived from material conditions born from the very system they support.
More options
Context Copy link
Obligatory John Adams quote.
Great quote, and exactly right.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Speaking just to the specific question of how one understand’s Christian love, I tend to take Brand’s stance on it.
God’s love is infinitely more than our human conception of love, and it is bundled up together with his righteousness and wrath and holiness. The same God who says “Love one another as I have loved thee,” is perfectly, rightly capable of wiping out peoples and places. Failure to grasp this is how you wind up with “Love wins” and “Hate has no home here” churches that would never tell anyone they are living in specific sin. But it is clear from Scripture that whatever else God is, he is not what is conceived of in the modern understanding of “God is love.”
I make the argument that when Christianity, taken as a whole, was most adherent to God’s commands and intentions, is also the time it was riding high in the world in terms of temporal power. It was the time when it had made itself strong enough to resist outside conquest and to, from that base of operations, eventually evangelize the world, however imperfectly. At that time it was confident in itself, assertive, and had not yet fully fallen under the sway of the “The only thing that matters is love” heresy.
Similarly, the interpretation of agape gives the pre-arranged conclusion away from the beginning. Agape isn’t just for comrades in the cause, it is meant, in varying degrees, for everyone.
In theory, I should have agape for Slavoj Zizek, just like I should for a fellow parishioner. It has nothing to do with comrades in the Communist or cause-oriented sense and I would argue demonstrates Zizek’s extremely weak understanding of or an intentional misrepresentation of the concept in order to bolster an otherwise weak argument.
At least some of those churches condemn sin, but merely disagree with you about whether certain things are sinful (e. g. whatever happens in Pete and Chasten Buttigieg's bedroom).
More options
Context Copy link
Therefore Scripture is wrong, as should be expected from texts written by flawed mortal men.
or the modern understanding of "God is Love" is wrong, as should be expected from an understanding unquestionably built by flawed mortal men.
Perhaps. If God exists, it think it's more plausible for humans' moral instincts (telling them that mass murder is wrong) to have remained in tune with the truth of God and the Good, while Hebrew myths about a bloodthirsty, wrathful deity arose for the same reasons that a hundred similar ones did in many cultures; than for the moral instinct to be wrong, and those particular tales about a bloodthirsty deity happening to be correct.
This is not a human moral instinct. Humans are quite comfortable with mass murder. That's why we've done it repeatedly (that, and it's a very good strategy).
(I suppose we can argue about whether or not something is a "human moral instinct" if it's not shared by all humans. And it is true that some humans are uncomfortable with mass murder. But the fact remains that mass murder is a very typical human behavior.)
Having a moral instinct ≠ being reliably bound by it at all times. Indeed, the most common manifestation of the moral instinct is feeling guilty after doing something that one knew, deep down, to be wrong. (Case in point, I think a majority of mass murderers in human history had a conscience, it was just drowned out by other concerns and they did the wrong thing anyway.)
Seems more parsimonious to believe that humans as a general rule actually have few-to-no moral qualms about mass murder as long as it fits into what you might call a mammalian herd strategy.
This is not saying that humans have no moral instincts simply because moral taboos are sometimes violated but rather than the moral taboos about mass murder apply only weakly if at all to group enemies.
However, I probably should back up a bit here - I've been using "mass murder" very much in the context of group warfare which is very different from mass murder in a serial killer sense, but the latter is much closer to the actual meaning of the word "murder." If your position is that Genghis Khan doesn't count as a mass murderer but Hitler does, my position is at least closer to yours than I conceived.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Depends on what side of the spear they're on.
At least people are finally catching on to the ultimate “Always has been.”
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
Motte and Bailey. Maybe Christians should hold everything in common, selling property and possessions to give to anyone in need. Is that how Zizek lives or does he need to remove something from his own eye? Nowhere does the New Testament call Christians to advocate the violent redistribution of the fruits of non-believers’ labor.
More options
Context Copy link
I think in the general case, the resolution is that love is for a conrete quality at first, and grows independent of them over time. You can consider a bare particular stripped even of its own past, but I dont think thats really relevant to anything. I dont see how that can generalise to loving all humanity, but it well may.
More options
Context Copy link
The abrahamic god is not internationally communist in any sense of the word. Some of the later Christian/Islamist pan-nationalist religious modifications are there for pure realpolitik goals, but the the raw original religion is not. It's explicitly ethnic/nationalist and totalizing.
There's nothing in the church fathers, in the didache, or in the new testament which indicates that Christianity tends towards ethnic nationalism. I'm pretty sure Islam is similar.
Christianity before it was coopted by the roman empire was a jewish thing, specifically a cult of one man's teachings. All the rest of the revisions later are made to paper over that.
No one is denying the relevance of Christianity’s Jewish roots. The Old Testament is important, and Jesus as the Jewish Messiah is a central doctrine of Christianity. But gentiles were included from a very early date.
I want to riff on hydroacetylene’s examples, keeping in mind that the Battle of Milvian Bridge, when Constantine began to move toward Christianity, happened in 312.
Acts 10–11 covers the Jewish church’s acceptance of gentile converts, and Acts 15 relates the decision not to impose the Mosaic law on them. Even if you do not accept Acts as history, it demonstrates the presence of gentile converts who did not practice the Jewish law at the time the book was written. It may be from the 60s, because it doesn’t include Paul’s death, but I think that some liberal scholars have it as late as the early second century.
The Didache is a super interesting document of early Christian teaching and practice. It has a ton of Jewish influence, but it also takes pains to distinguish Christians from non-Christian Jews (ch. 8) and to include gentiles (14:3). Its date is hotly disputed; it is most likely from the first century, but at the latest from the middle of the second.
The church fathers cover a long span of time, but they begin in the late first century. The earliest group is called the apostolic fathers (as distinct from the apostles themselves), and they take it as a given that the church includes gentiles.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Christianity is, quite explicitly, not egalitarian. There’s the inequality between God and man and the angels, obviously. But then the New Testament describes an early church which is profoundly class based- there are different types of clerics, men are the head of women, and slaves are expected to obey their masters. These classes might differ in some regards from secular social classes but it isn’t the classless, property less, stateless society which is communism’s raizon detre. In fact Christian theology has from early days been very skeptical of hostility to the state.
That's true, the Church is a hierarchy and has leaders and followers. However, Christianity is very explicitly egalitarian about moral worth: every human being is equally morally worthy, because we all have an immortal soul and were made in the image of God.
More options
Context Copy link
I'd just add that the New Testament is actually very skeptical of wealth (there's a strong connection made at points between the wealthy and the oppressors) and the church is condemned for showing partiality to those who are wealthy. So it's interesting because it's not really proto-communist-egalitarian-paradise but neither does it succumb to a sort of "will-to-power" fantasy where strength or power are to be privileged. Really what's elevated is moral goodness and wisdom.
I have often conceived of Christianity as a belief system that replaces the hierarchy based on strength with a hierarchy based on moral goodness. "My status hierarchy is not of this world." But there still is a status hierarchy. (Just like there's still a kingdom -- just one that God rules personally.)
Of course, that's what Nietzsche said -- instead of badness, inferiority, Christianity criticizes evil, moral turpitude. But unlike Nietzche I believe this is both a positive development and a necessary one.
The thing is that goodness applies to many things, including how you use said position. Companies typically have a hierarchy, but high positions in that hierarchy are not really "status" in the conventional sense. The higher salary they bring might be status, but the position itself is largely-exhausted in what you have to do to keep it - managers authority as opposed to owners authority. Of course its not always like this, and sometimes positions do lean more towards feudal fief, but you get the idea. The kind of status you describe christianity as bestowing is managers authority, and it often seems to be opposed to anything but its particular management authority, and that is what creates a quasi-communist impression.
I’m not actually talking about the formal hierarchy of the Church here — which I agree is a manager’s authority — but about the hierarchy of the saints. The hierarchy it’s replacing isn’t the hierarchy of government, but the more nebulous, albeit extremely real, hierarchy of informal status that drives people to compete for praise, attention, and mates.
Im also not talking about the church hierarchy. Those are officially managerial positions. What I mean is that general christian virtue ends up being a "jealous god" about the use of your status to an extent that becomes effectively managerial. Youre not supposed to derive worldly rewards from it. Matthew 6 goes in that direction relatively explicitly.
Of course this has mostly not been actual practice, but its been there, and radical/restorationist people keep hitting upon it, and... I see their point.
Correct. You’re supposed to derive heavenly rewards from it. Which is why I’m talking about a hierarchy that is not of this world!
I see what you're saying, and I agree it is a serious problem people often have with Christianity, but the supernatural and cosmic justice elements are load-bearing. There are elements of Christian moral teaching that I believed before I converted to Christianity and would doubtless still believe even if I apostasized, but the whole scope of the Christian doctrine about holiness, martyrdom, charity, and asceticism is founded on the principle that Heaven exists and there's treasure there.
I thought this was you saying "People still compete for praise, attention, and mates, but now the game is different" - because that would sound like worldy rewards. If you mean something people do instead of competing for those, then... it seems your prescription on earth actually is communism. Youre saying its not communist only because your reasons are different, where originally I thought your defense was along the lines of "Some christian beliefs in isolation would prescribe communism, but if you consider the supernatural principles as well, it no longer prescribes communism even on earth.".
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
Auctoritas vs. potestas, is pre-Christian (compare Potestas/Kratos the God, supporting dictatorship and advocating for random violence) although Christianity somewhat reenvisioned them. (N.b. further concepts like imperium remeasure the semantic fields in different ways in different thinkers' works.)
Moral authority (earned by correctness, selflessness and hard-earned reputation (dignitas, not yet dignity, but social standing) vs. raw exercising of power. Without moral goodness, power is illegitimate. But moral goodness without power is also lacking - although Socrates condemned to death has the highest authority of all, if it can't work good in the world, it's a tad selfish - like a desert hermit, isolated from society for his own soul compared to those monks' kenosis, who engage with the dirt and grime of humanity and lift it up, however slowly, through holy struggle and love.
A modern systems thinker, applying EA (is this now looked down upon? Well, applying financial metrics and industrial engineering) can improve the lot of thousands instead of spending their time administering aid to individuals, one at a time. To some extent, the traditional Christian image/aesthetic looks down upon this, preferring the Pope to bathe the poor's feet, Navy Devos to teach people to read etc. I at least think overall betterment's important.
I believe Christianity is fairly "aristocratic", believing everyone can be better and flourish (overcoming their sinful urges), but forgiving them for succumbing to this fallen world. (My faith is grounded in gnostic-curious Platonism, though.) The lower classes can rise beyond that station, but if they don't, they still have their own path to God. (N.b. this is not prosperity gospel, rather just... If you don't waste your time on vices and sloth, you can trivially better yourself and the life of those around you, building, learning, teaching etc.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” is the second greatest commandment. The greatest is, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” The two commandments are not the same, and the order is important. You can’t just swap out the gospel for any old cause, not even one that preaches love.
If you remove the supernatural bits from Christianity, you are not left with a new kind of Christianity; you have a new movement wearing Christianity as a skin suit. There have been plenty of these. Off the top of my head, liberation theology, the social gospel movement, and the preaching of John Ball seem to be pretty straightforward parallels.
The command to love your neighbor does not imply that you are to love everyone to the same degree and in the same way. Christians disagree among ourselves about the details. I personally find the first epistle of John to be helpful here, but I also consider it one of the most difficult books of the New Testament. A lot of people read John talking about love, have fuzzy feelings, and ignore the things he says that make it complicated.
I don’t know enough Aristotelian (I assume) philosophy to speak fittingly in terms of essences, properties, and qualities. But I can point out that in Christian belief all men possess the image of God, which gives them value in itself and may resolve your dilemma.
But if Man is made in the Image of God, is not 'loving our neighbor as ourself' how we 'love the Lord our God with all our heart and with all our, &c., &c.'?
It means that love of neighbor follows from love of God, but the former doesn’t subsume the latter.
Let me give an example that I read a zillion years ago in the New Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. I may get the details wrong, and I haven’t confirmed the thoroughness of the book’s sources, but it works just as well as a thought experiment anyway:
A woman was in the custody of the Soviet secret police. These sometimes took a perverse joy in breaking people they weren’t going to let leave alive anyway, and they had decided to break her faith. When maiming her legs didn’t do it, they brought in her children and threatened to shoot them if she did not deny Christ. She refused, and the secret police shot her children in front of her.
If love of God is the higher good, she did the right thing. It’s not that she didn’t love her children enough; it’s that she loved God more than that.
To digress to another religion, this kind of thing is what taqiyya was originally for.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're claim that liberation theology and the social gospel movement "remove the supernatural elements from Christianity" is straightforwardly wrong. These are not evangelical theologies---and it's fine to dislike them for that reason---but they obviously incorporate the supernatural.
The gulf here is much wider than that. If Jesus Christ was not raised from the dead, then confessional Lutheranism, or Roman Catholicism, or Eastern Orthodoxy falls apart. Liberation theology and the social gospel movement keep on trucking.
Only in the sense that they try to “use the stairs of heaven as a shortcut to the nearest chemist's shop,” in Lewis’ inimitable phrase.
Where do you get the idea that these theologies deny the resurrection of Christ? La Misa Popular Salvadoreña is basically the anthem of liberation theology. It's a series of 11 songs for celebrating a post-Vatican II non-Latin mass. Here is the song they sing during communion where they explicitly acknowledge the passion and resurrection of Christ: https://youtube.com/watch?v=R8yJWvDNJWU&list=PLhCyWH9pFDuYFB8VLeObzJEABIhHlW27u&index=8.
I don't think it's about denial, it's about what the basics of faith are. For a different example, If climate change is conclusively shown to not be real, old-school greens fall apart, new greens keep on chugging on social policies.
This is nonsensical. When Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated for his liberation theology, he was still teaching that "the basics of faith" are the Catholic catechism. Liberation theology---whether you agree with it or not---was obviously an edifice built on top of that.
Tbh I'm primarily familiar with the catholic vs protestant split in germany, but here that distinction is very much real. I know several (university-educated) women holding official positions of power within protestant church offices who have explicitly told me that in reality they do not believe except for some undefined spirituality. One even hired a non-christian into the church office, despite a christian denomination being a requirement to be hired. Worse, I don't even have the impression she is worried about being caught, there seems to be a widely shared culture of just not caring. Not coincidentally, these are among the wokest people I know.
I'd have to take you on faith that liberation theology is different, but at least some of the more explicitly communist/marxist-aligned seem to me like the same type.
That's fair. I've known plenty of churches like that as well.
More options
Context Copy link
FWIW, any protestant sermons in my little village church are usually about one part unspecific feelgood Christianity and four parts green-red political rally.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When I looked into liberation theology, what I found was a group of people using gospel language but assigning the terms Marxist definitions. It wasn’t that they denied the resurrection but that they rendered it irrelevant, something one could take or leave. If that’s not representative, I’ll be pleasantly surprised; I considered reading Gutiérrez, but by that point I wasn’t particularly inspired to look deeper.
I will have to check out your link.
Edit: Do you know of a link to the words of the people’s mass you linked? My Spanish isn’t great, and I will do a better job muddling through text than audio.
That's certainly a common right-wing interpretation of liberation theology. And there's relevant critiques of liberation theology that it only became popular due to Soviet covert influence. But the major theologians/leaders are all card-carrying Catholics that buy into all of Catholic spirituality.
Sorry, I don't know any text versions of the songs for reading :( My guess is that you would still find it to be heavily Marxist, but that doesn't mean the people singing don't literally believe in the miracles they're singing about.
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
No background in Aristotle needed. The word "quality" is just being used in its ordinary sense. Intelligence is a quality. Beauty is a quality. Nothing fancy going on.
Sure. But then, all people would be the same in that regard. Love has to single out a particular person (or a particular thing) in contradistinction to others.
In my own view, universal love is at worst incoherent, and at best it's a particularly tepid form of love. There is no love unless you can draw a distinction between those who are loved and those who are unloved; and so universal properties shared by all people cannot be the basis of love.
Fair enough. I think that's a pretty base level definitional difference with Christianity.
More options
Context Copy link
I think the difference is you think of love as primarily an emotional experience, while Christianity thinks of love as primarily a willed action. That being said, I think the idea of deep, intense love directed at many different people isn't inherently incoherent, it just doesn't scale well for finite humans because we can't hold the intimate understandings of more than a few people before we stop keeping track.
Jesus Christ is often described as having a particularly extreme emotional love for all human beings (in addition to the willing-the-good kind of love), because being human he experiences emotional love and being divine he is omniscient. A pretty common idea in Christianity is that Jesus is not only the savior of all men as a generalized mass of human beings, but that a part of his passion involved personally pondering the lives of every person and mourning the ways in which their sins did themselves and other people harm out of a unique love for them personally. A ubiquitous statement is that Jesus would have died for you, even if you were the only person ever. You might even call him the trope namer for wearing your heart on your sleeve!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Interestingly from what I can tell the "proto-Christian-communism" was within the Christian community - and it came with rules.
Besides Acts 2 (where the holding of "all things in common" was within the church) see for instance Galatians 6:10 ("...let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.") and 1st Timothy 5, which gives these instructions for granting charity to windows: "Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work."
So while Christianity definitely has an idea of the "universal fraternity of man" within Scripture the brotherhood of believers is privileged. That's not to say that charitable works to nonbelievers are forbidden, but it's not the communist ideal of the Universal Brotherhood of Man (...or perhaps it is similar, in the sense that the Communist Universal Brotherhood of Man was in practice often restricted to, well, Communists.)
Don't forget 2 Thessalonians 3:10 ("He who will not work, let them also not eat").
-- Lenin
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm going to start with a petty nitpick:
Storge (στοργή) does not actually appear in the scriptures. A handful of words derived from it do (there's φιλόστοργος in Romans 12:10 and ἄστοργος in Romans 1:31 and 2 Timothy 3:3), but στοργή itself is not in the Bible.
Now that said...
I don't think much of any kind of Christian-inflected atheism. I understand that a religion can cast a long shadow and retain immense psychological power even among those who reject its core claims. However, what I find in cases like this is a kind of sentimental appropriation of the power of Christian rhetoric even alongside the rejection or outright destruction of Christian faith itself, and I think I would prefer honest enemies to friends like that.
What I read in Zizek's essay is a kind of substitution. He appropriates the language of Christian faith but swaps out its referent, such that the Holy Spirit can become 'an egalitarian community of comrades dedicated to a Cause'. What is there to say there but that the Holy Spirit is not, in fact, an egalitarian community of comrades dedicated to a Cause, and the substitution can only do violence to the Holy Spirit, which is, after all, not merely a linguistic flourish, but (as Christians believe) the Third Person of the Trinity.
I think this is trading one's birthright for pottage. Maybe the Christian hope is right, maybe it's a delusion, but either way it's not just the hope for a fairer world in the here and now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What ancient Internet history can tell us about the rise of the Woke Right
A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of the Woke Right! We've discussed it before ourselves, opinion range from "it's an op" to "there might be something to it", but one way or the other, a decent chunk of the anti-woke coalition it's an issue that needs to be addressed.
Recently Douglas Murray went on Joe Rogan and had a conversation with Dave Smith about, among other things, the responsibility of influencers with huge platforms to the public. Smith and Rogan took the familiar position of "muh marketplace of ideas", while Murray believes that people with so much influence should be a bit more selective, because exposing the public to bad ideas will lead to some part of the audience uncritically adopting them.
The conversation made huge waves and sparked a massive discussion, articles by Konstantin Kisin, tweet storms by James Lindsay, follow up conversation between Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, between Peterson and Lindsay, and more recently between Tucker Carlson and Dave Smith. In short, though not all of them might put it in the same terms, some on the anti-woke side fear that following Trump's victory the right "got it's mojo back" and now some of it's more extreme ideas are entering the mainstream discourse, so the centrist liberals want to prevent the "pendulum swinging back"...
...and all I can think is "I've seen it all before"...
First as a farce...
Let me take you back to the year of our lord 2017. It wasn't that long ago, and yet the vibe of the time was so different it almost feels like it was all a dream. Back then the way to make money on big SocMeds was to clown on Social Justice, so everybody and their dog had to have a cartoon character Youtube channel deboonking Buzzfeed. The situation was so dire for SJs that any video trying to put their position forward would yield and endless stream of critical responses which, to add insult to injury, would end up filling the recommended feed of the original pro-SJ video. Trump has also just entered office for the first time, so in that atmosphere it felt like anti-woke liberalism is unstoppable. And then a few things happened:
With so much online hype in the air, a person going by the name "BasedMama" decided to take the anti-SJW phenomenon to the next level, and host an IRL event. I still unironically think this was a great idea, even now the Dissident Right regularly talks about the importance of real-world organising, and with a guest list consisting of massive influencers from Tim Pool to Sargon of Akkad, the event had the potential to be a huge success. I can't point to anything specific now, but I distinctly remember the SJWs genuinely unnerved by the prospect of it taking place...
...but luckily for them it crashed and burned at an astonishing pace. First, the invited guests started complaining about demands to sign NDA's and non-compete contracts. The smaller ones went along with it, but the bigger ones, many no strangers to the conference circuit, said they're having none of it. Tim Pool publically dropped out with a video to his fans, explaining why he's not going to be at the event. The organizers' attempts at damage control only exasperated the backlash, causing even more guests to drop out. It even turned out that the guest list announced during the crowdfunding campaign was a "fake it 'till you make it" thing and some of the big names never actually signed on.
More relevant to what I want to discuss here: the whole event was marketed as a "free speech" conference, so naturally it attracted the attention of "witches": HBDers, Alt-Righters, and others with ideas rejected by polite society, and as it turned out, by the organizers themselves, who were on record expressing sympathy for the ideas of Social Justice, just thought that their current iteration went too far. That's all perfectly valid as far as I'm concerned, no one is entitled to a slot at a conference, but the usual way to handle this sort of issue is to say "you're welcome to come, but golly gee, we ran out of time/space to host any more speakers/panels", but BasedMama et. al. decided to handle it in the worst possible way: announce the witches will have their panels to get the crowdfunding / ticket money of their audiences, and only then say "oopsie, we ran out of slots". What's worse, people quickly joined the dots and realized that it's only people with a specific kind of views that there seems to be no time for. The "free speech" event was quickly seen for a sham, and all except for the most diehard supporters dropped out. An event that could have plausibly attracted thousands ended up get 20-40 attendants, from what I recall.
Back in the online world the youtuber KrautAndTea decided it's time to balance out his usual dunking on feminists and Muslim-immigration-enjoyers with dunking on the more extreme elements on the right. He started accusing various B-List youtubers of being cryptonazis, of trying to lure people in with relatively inoffensive critiques of society, and then radicalizing them into the Alt-Right. Also, with videos like "The Alt-Right is too Dumb for Genetics (and Maths)" and "The Alt-Right is too Dumb for Genetics and Physiology", he decided to take on the Big Kahuna - HBD, or what was then going by as Race Realism.
What he did not take into account, however, was the possibility that the academic establishment sold him a bill of goods, and the actual science is much more on the HBDers' side than he expected... Various Alt-Right youtubers like Alt-Hype and JF Gariepy proceeded to take turns taking the piss out of him, and pointing out each and every way he was wrong. The familiar dynamic of critical responses appearing, and becoming more popular than the original "deboonking" video was now unleashed on Kraut. It did not go well for him. He ended up crashing out, got caught red-handed coordinating to flag Alt-Right videos, and coming up with some convoluted Discord schemes to humiliate his opponents. Long story short, he ended up having to take a hiatus from the internet, and to rebrand upon comeback.
Back before anyone really heard of influencer marketing, an amazing new app took the internet by storm - Candid, an online forum promising to host uncensored anonymous conversations. All your favorite youtubers were shilling it. It was the Raid, Shadow Legends of online forums... until it was all taken down by a single autistic NEET...
A youtuber going by HarmfulOpinions decided to take a deeper look at the app, and quickly found out that rather than being uncensored, Candid's moderation was powered by a woke AI. What is now accepted as a fact of life was enough to spark a massive controversy back then, not only against the company, but against the influencers that failed to do their due diligence before shilling a product. The CEO's attempts at damage control were hilariously inept, and only resulted in the hole being dug deeper, but more to the point, starved for cash in the wake of the Adpocalypse, the anti-SJW influencers decided to circle the wagons around Candid. Some realized they backed the wrong horse, and exited gracefully, but others tried using their superior numbers (both in terms of videos and their reach) to discredit HarmfulOpinions and paint him as a conspiracy theorist.
This too did not go well. Candid collapsed as a company, and the influencers involved in shilling it to the bitter end took a massive hit to their credibility.
If you want a glimpse into the past as I saw it, you can watch Mister Metokur's Tales of Trout, and the archive of Harmful Opinions' Candid series. I don't know if I actually recommend them unless you really have nothing better to do. I used to find them hilarious, but they just don't land the same way anymore. I will say they are interesting as a time capsule, and Harmful's videos in particular feels like a sign of things to come - scammy Indian CEO's, AI training to surveil and censor dissidents, conspiracy theories that are, in hindsight, naive to not believe in - that series has it all!
There was more to the story than these 3 events, of course, but those are the broad strokes of what I remember. The end result was pretty much a total collapse of the Youtube anti-SJW sphere, and gave rise to another trend called "Internet Bloodsports", aiming to center authenticity and direct confrontations over fake politeness and highschool Mean Girls games, but ended in whoring yourself out for superchats and brandishing firearms on the streets of Florida, while singing what might as well have been Kanye's latest hit.
More importantly, it was followed by the rise of BreadTube and nearly a decade of darkness, as far as internet discourse is concerned.
...then as a tragedy?
Now, it may seem like I'm putting all the blame on the left-liberal faction of the anti-woke / anti-SJW sphere, and as much as I have issues with them, I want to give them their due. Kraut was right about cryptonazis luring people in with more inoffensive stuff. We regularly see it happen right here on the Motte, with that dude that keeps nuking his accounts, so Douglas' Murray's "be careful what you're watering" argument is not wrong.
I’ve also seen enough crowds being manipulated that I can even understand his sudden turn towards trusting the experts, especially if you keep the previous argument in mind. The antidote to bad speech might be more speech, and sunlight might be the best disinfectant, but if there are crypto-authoritarians on the loose, who have no qualms about presenting themselves dishonestly, they might be able to win the crowd over long enough to take political control, and shut off all opposition. This is essentially what the woke left did, and it’s what some are afraid the woke right might pull off as well.
The problem is that the entire legitimacy of liberalism rests on the free exchange of ideas. This is especially true for the anti-woke ones, as they spent the last 8 years fending off accusation of Nazism themselves, and begging for a seat at the table. If they want to shut off the secretive and the dishonest that’s fair enough (though I will have question about Murray's quiet mumbling when his support for a new war in Iran was brought up), but they have an obligation to directly confront the open and the honest, even if they find their views disgusting.
I don’t mind being called “woke right”, if you can actually address my ideas head-on. I’ve said it before - it’s perfectly natural for liberals to attack me with all their vigor, because I oppose their fundamental values. It would be sad and disappointing if this didn’t illicit the kind of visceral reaction they are showing. However, I do mind being called “woke right” if it’s just a way to shut me out of a conversation, by slapping a scary label on me.
Actually, forget about me minding anything, the argument I’m trying to make here is that it will be a disaster for the liberals, if they keep trying to win by gatekeeping. It will be like training an AI on it's own output. A reasonable concern about about the pendulum swinging too far back, will end in declaring that wanting the economy to serve the people is fascist, finding racism in ham sandwitches, and deranged theories about angel summoners. And if you position yourself as an expert and spend all this time complaining about all these clowns hiding behind comedy when confronted on their takes about serious issues, maybe come up with a better argument then "people love talking about Paul Wolfowitz because his name starts with a nasty animal, and he's Jewish".
I reversed Marx' famous quip, because it's all fun and games when the story involves cartoon avatars, and characters with names like BasedMama and KrautAndTea, but when I see Conservative Inc. playing the same "you are wrong, and dumb for believing this" game that Kraut did, the same "we're for free speech, but you shouldn't be given such a big platform" game that Killroy did, and the same whisper networks that would try to psy-op you into believing someone's an insane conspiracy theorist now coordinating to make "Woke Right" a thing, I don't really feel like laughing. I've seen how the story involving a bunch of online autists ends, so when I see these dynamics play out on the scale of Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, I get a bit nervous.
The Dissident Right is bigger now than the alt-right ever was in its heyday in terms of engagement with ideas and content and influence. Matt Walsh is only the most recent of a long list of big-C Conservative influencers who now essentially adopt 2017 alt-right talking points on race and increasingly, maybe Israel even.
The irony of those like Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray trying to spread moral panic over the platforming of "Woke Right" is that it actually describes themselves better than it does the DR. Peterson, Murray and Woke alike are in alignment over high values like anti-racism and individualism, they just have different criteria for how those values are achieved. But both the Woke and Peterson will be scandalized by the DR critique of those values and the DR's rejection of this Boomer moral paradigm which they all pretend is centuries old but only goes back to, like the 60s at the earliest.
The Boomer consensus is essentially an anti-fascist dialectic- fascism is the most evil thing in the world and whether Right or Left, the operative question is how do we optimize to prevent Fascism, and both Conservatives including Peterson and Douglas Murray and the Woke are playing their part. What neither of them can stand is the Dissident Right which openly flaunts the anti-fascist norms enforced by both the Conservatives and Woke. The DR is a rejection of the Boomer Consensus and a rejection of the entire "Conservative v Woke" dialectic.
There's no going backwards. The "Conservative v Woke" dialectic that Peterson desperately wants to save is going by the wayside thanks to an Avant-garde Right wing which is terrifying to both Conservatives and Woke.
Edit: Just a few days ago, Matt Walsh reposted a crypto-Swastika on X (if you don't see it at first, try squinting). I believe he knew what he was doing. Not to say Walsh is a Nazi or anything, it's the flirtation with the edgy right-wing humor and symbolism that is novel compared to the Conservative puritans who call the DR "woke".
Yes, but the Dissident Right is a broader category than the Alt Right. I have the feeling you're implying that the Boomer Consensus is anti-fascist, therefore the Dissident Right is fascist or fashy, whereas I would say it's merely anti- or non- liberal.
My post already got way too long, but I was considering a whole section comparing and contrasting the recent Triggernometry interviews with Deborah Frances and Lily Phillips, with a conversation between Konstantin Kissin and Benjamin Boyce. The first one is a bit stand-offish but Kisin and Foster are defensive if not apologetic, quick to assure that "we certainly don't hold that [insert right-wing opinion]". The second one is friendly and the tone is nearly giddy. Sure they ask some critical questions, but it's hardly what I'd call confrontational. This is in stark contrast to the conversation with Boyce, which is agrressive with a constant tone of moral outrage, for the high crime of thinking that maybe Churchill wasn't a good guy. Call me crazy, but I think people believing Deborah Frances' brand of feminism, and Philipsesque OnlyFans prostitutes have done far more damage to society than people with an axe to grind against Churchill, but it's the latter that get the moral outrage.
Well, I certainly hope you're wrong. If you want to argue for nazism, argue for nazism, don't hide behind this "hee hee, I'm just a silly edgelord" bullshit. This sort of behavior is about the only thing that would justify the anti-"woke right" freak out, in my mind.
The problem here is that the definition of Fascism is functionally non-liberal, Right Wing. You can argue that shouldn't be the operative definition of fascism, but the DR is fashy by nature of being Right-Wing and post-liberal.
But the point is that poking the eye of the Boomer Consensus with edgy stuff like does not mean Walsh is arguing for Nazism. It's just flaunting a disrespect for norms enforced by Conservatives and Woke alike. In fact that would be my criticism of Walsh, he's trying to have a foot in both camps. He's trying to synthesize the Daily Wire Conservatism with some of the Race stuff from the DR + some edgy flaunting of political norms. Where does his actual thinking lie? I don't know.
It's obvious if you read between the lines that Matt Walsh belongs to the hardline end of red tribe conservatism- skepticism of the federal government, not particularly a white supremacist but thinks the station of black people is the fault of black people, perhaps less philosemitic than average but still more sympathetic with Israel than Palestine, anti-feminist, not crunchy.
More options
Context Copy link
In the broad popular imagination, it might be, but fascism is a distinctly modernist/progressive ideology, and vast swathes of the Dissident Right have no love for modernity.
A distinctly shortsighted tactic, that ruins the discourse for anyone trying to take things seriously, including those on the DR.
Why not just make jokes about cheddar cheese like other normies?
I'd imagine that someone as high up on the influencer ladder as he is, would know it's not a game that you can play sustainably.
My view of the Dissident Right is that it's an evolutionary memetic algorithm generating a post-postmodern Right Wing. But it will be regarded as Fascist by conservatives and Woke alike, whether or not that is the proper academic use of the term.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Matt Walsh’s dislike of Candace Owens(for being a schizo) will prevent him from being an early adopter of anti-Zionism or anything else JQ related.
I also really don’t think the swastika was intentional on his part- very probable someone trolled him. I certainly didn’t look at it and see ‘swastika’.
If it was unintentional he would at minimum delete the tweet, and probably send another tweet apologizing and insisting it was a mistake. Leaving it on the timeline, where it has 3.5 million views now despite the fact he is no doubt well aware of the nature of the image, points to him being intentionally provocative.
https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1923128567996780750
It's pretty clever, on my computer I wouldn't have seen it if someone hadn't said something. I could tell it was AI though. When the image is small it's clear as day. He didn't tweet it, he didn't even retweet it, he replied disagreeing with the person who posted the picture and statement.
DESPITE... usually being a Noticer, I couldn't see the swastika either upon opening the image, but the squinting trick worked for (on?) me. Kind of a small mindfuck. Maybe I am a normie (marvel_vision.jpg).
I'm unfamiliar with Walsh beyond the vague baseline awareness he's some sort of right-coded influencer, but this makes me like him—instead of bending the knee—going with the McGregor "I'd like to take this chance to apologize... to absolutely nobody" and also (possibly) calling out mainstream conservatives for being progressives driving the speed limit, although the quotes around conservatives could be in reference to progressives posing in a "hello, fellow conservatives" kind of way.
I saw the image that Walsh replied to on 4chan several days ago. The swastika is much more noticeable in a 4chan thumbnail before you open the full size image.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That makes no sense. Why would he do that if it was unintentional?
"Matt Walsh posts Swastika on Timeline" is not a controversy that someone generally wants to be involved in. Like the Sewer Ben Shapiro telling him he can't post that, along with pats on the back from others in the reply. This stuff just isn't on the timeline of people who aren't being intentionally provocative.
On the other hand, if the sharks smell blood, they'll rip you to shreds. "Never apologize" has been the standard advice by people who observed these controversies with any amount of care, right-wing or otherwise.
Vox Day's books also come to mind (SJWs Always Lie, and SJWs Always Double Down).
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
Saying he "reposted" a swastika seems like a bit of a bait-and-switch. Matt replied to a guy's tweet. (The guy could have been a troll, whatever).
Arguments over if Matt noticed the swastika; and if not, should he apologize; are all assuming that the swastika imagery has some sacred evilness that means Matt needs to drop whatever he's doing and point it out and condemn it. He doesn't. You know those silly Facebook engagement bait posts that say, "children of the Devil will scroll past this" and its a picture of Jesus or whatever?
This whole swastika discourse is just the libtard version of that. Matt scrolled past a picture of Jesus and people are hounding him over it. I guess you're right that he is flaunting the norms. I wish he'd make a Shiloh-tier video about this instead of just putting out the one tweet.
Yes, literally says he was trolling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I doubt it. It's not at all easy to notice unless someone tells you it's there, and the guy Wash is replying to (the one who posted the picture, I assume) is making a leftist argument, which Matt is rebutting. There's no tongue in cheek winking or anything like that.
In what world is that a leftist argument? Is it even an argument at all?
What would you call it? It seems to be a statement made to make a point of some sort, based on Walsh's reply I would assume it is coming from the political left.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would like to jokingly suggest just owning this one
More options
Context Copy link
Douglas Murray spent the first, like...hour of the podcast talking about how Darryl Cooper, the noted Winston Churchill historian, had spent his career tearing down Churchill and "just asking questions" about why Darryl is devoting so much of his time to focusing on Churchill.
Except in reality: Approximately a year ago, Cooper spent about 2 minutes making a throwaway comment about how he takes a devil's advocate position about Churchill with his friend, a big Churchill fan, as a way of riling him up and playing around with him. Douglass couldn't do 10 minutes of actual research into this topic before then spending an hour talking about how only experts, people who really understand the topic, should be allowed to talk about things publicly. Darryl Cooper in reality is a podcaster who puts out 30+ hour long series about things like: The Formation of Israel, The Civil Rights Movement/The People's Temple/Jim Jones, World War 2 from the perspective of the Germans[1], The History of Slavery, and The horror of war (a standalone episode called "The anti-humans".
[1]: His whole point with this, stated explicitly, is that Germany didn't just wake up one day and decide to be the Nazis, one of the most evil institutions to ever exist, and then at the end of the war just decide to stop being the Nazis. It was a long process of humans making (bad) human decisions. The implicit point here, and with almost all of his work, is that good people can be talked into doing really bad things, and to be cautious around "movements" (like The Peoples' Temple, or a lot of the civil rights groups) because they can slowly-then-suddenly turn into a nightmare.
Douglass showed his cards, and it turns out that he's an idiot with a nice voice. The Strange Death of Europe was a good book, but it turns out the person behind it is probably a fool.
The problem for Douglas with the DR is that he spent years doing talks and debates against mass immigration and anti-western thought where he based his whole rhetoric around the fact that, ultimately, 'we killed Hitler'.
When the foundation for that is questioned and the roles of good and bad are muddled or ignored, Doug has to respond.
It's a hallmark of what I would call, in the spirit of our new term; the faux Right. Every pontification towards what is good for Europeans has to be grounded in some form of bargain of what is 'fair'. And what determines fairness is generally just progressive morality from 10-20 years ago.
I think this is a relatively substantial mischaracterization of Murray, who has mostly called himself a classical liberal, except when he decided to embark on the contrarian project of rehabilitating the by-then-already-discredited term ‘neoconservative’ in the late 2000s and early 2010s (largely since abandoned).
He’s a gay cosmopolitan man who essentially wants the cosmopolitan liberal society of the early 2000s to continue forever. He’s pretty open about that, and it is the main reason he is opposed to mass immigration from the Islamic world.
I'm not seeing the mischaracterization. He can call himself a classical liberal neoconservative and suck as many dicks as he wants, he is still haggling against progressive morality.
Why else would a gay cosmopolitan man care so much about the legacy of Winston Churchill? It's because it's a part of his foundation for why the west deserves to survive. A moral narrative of redemption. He doesn't leverage how many amazing gay bars there used to be in London.
It’s because Murray is British and thinks British culture and history are the best in the world, and Churchill is by far the most beloved British political / cultural figure in history, topping almost every single poll of the greatest British people of all time. Ideology is entirely secondary, although in general Murray, as a fan of the British Empire - of which he considered neoconservatism / liberal imperialism a successor - likes Churchill’s imperialism. Churchill’s actual opinions are irrelevant on both sides (see, for example, Cooper’s insistence that Churchill’s primary motivation in prosecuting WW2 was some debts he allegedly owed to Jewish moneylenders).
An absolute tragedy. Churchill isn't even a top 3 prime minister of UK.
More options
Context Copy link
So is Churchill basically the British Abraham Lincoln, in terms of domestic praise? Or is this more about foreign perceptions of praiseworthy Brits?
I wonder if the same historiographical trends and forces that have happened to some extent over Lincoln have clear parallels for Churchill, or if the trajectory is very different. For example, modern emphasis on how Lincoln was willing to end the war keeping slavery intact, or suspending habeus corpus, was a racist, or a mini-tyrant. Unfair IMO, I think he deserves top billing as one of the best presidents alongside Washington.
More options
Context Copy link
Still not seeing the mischaracterization. Why would Churchill, the man whose decision making process ultimately nailed the final nail in the coffin of the British empire, be venerated by the likes of Murray? It's because Churchill opposed Hitler.
Ideology, for the likes of Murray, is central. That is why he spent 30 minutes waffling about good and evil on Joe Rogan when the topic of Darryl Cooper came up.
Not really. Murray’s ideology is the status quo as of the late 2000s / early 2010s. As polling suggests, in the UK among his generation that includes the extremely mainstream and almost universally accepted viewpoint (outside of the radical left and Indians) that Winston Churchill was one of the greatest Britons of all time because he ‘won’ the last major war that the country was involved in - and really there is no deeper complexity to that perception.
Murray’s ideology makes him a small-c conservative in some ways (he basically wants Britain as it existed in like 2007 to exist forever and for it to be filled with people who accept the major tenets of liberalism forever) and a classical liberal imperialist in others. The latter (liberal imperialism) isn’t an oxymoron, by the way, it has a long tradition in British politics going back at least 180 years.
It’s hard to hate Murray because, like Harris, he’s actually pretty open about what he believes and he openly acknowledges that this is mainly based on his perception of his own self-interest. He’s a gay man who wants to export liberal western culture, by force, onto the whole world and prevent mass immigration of people who hate him. You can disagree with him, but he is ideologically consistent.
The veneration of Churchill does not sprout from just winning 'a war' but what war, against who and for what cause. As I stated before, it makes little sense for a fan of British imperialism to idolize the man who functionally ended the empire with his decision making.
We can also see by Murrays own words and actions that he is haggling against progressive morality as he presents his own interests in terms of his sexuality.
To that end nothing I say is a mischaracterization, only a realistic clarification of where Murray is coming from and why.
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
World War II is basically the world’s secular creation myth now. Implying that this vastly destructive war that killed 60 million people could or should have been handled differently or, God forbid, avoided is basically heresy. It’s like saying “maybe Pontius Pilot shouldn’t have signed that one guy’s death warrant, because letting an angry mob override the fair application of law and due process is wrong”. In any other context a reasonable and good thing to say; but given the specific chain of events that came after and what they mean, unthinkable.
Saying this would, in the mainstream, be criticized as antisemitic, not anti-Christian. It is no longer allowed to believe that Pilate put Jesus to death at the urging of the crowd, because the crowd is Jewish.
The handful of fundamentalists who don't care(the bible is, in fairness, entirely clear about the role of the crowd) would agree with you.
More options
Context Copy link
What? Who believes that? It's my understanding that a strong majority people across all political sides think [European] WWII was preventable, it's just that the reasons vary. I think there are, broadly speaking, about three camps that conveniently tend to align with modern political positions:
The people of Germany should have been better at fighting back and denouncing Nazism when it was rising and/or after Hitler took control (Left)
The other nations around Germany should have been better at drawing firm lines in the sand for what was allowed and what was not, it was appeasement that let Hitler get out of control (Right)
The winners of WWI shouldn't have imposed such an overly strict and emasculating treaty of Versailles which led to German resentment and decline creating an environment of radicalism and lawlessness (Center)
I mean these were all reasons, but I think historians (to the extent that they agree) roughly rank those reasons above in ascending order of importance. I guess you could add underestimating Hitler (first bin), failure of the League of nations (first bin), economic factors (second bin), criticism of the Weimar democracy (third bin) too.
The argument for non-preventability rests on what? Actions from Versailles and foreign leaders are pretty agentic and led to many of the other reasons, I guess you could call the Great Depression non-agentic, or simply say that the world hadn't yet learned these lessons because similar situations hadn't existed yet?
(edit: formatting)
More options
Context Copy link
I do not think that saying "Hitler should not have attacked Poland" is very controversial, so you are likely not talking about what the Nazis could have done differently. In fact, the Western Allies tried to avoid the war by appeasing Hitler, because nobody was keen on repeating WW1. Now, you can argue that the UK and France should just have sat this one out, watching from the sidelines as Hitler takes Western Poland and then invades the USSR. Sure, that would have avoided the Blitz and the invasion of France -- or more accurately postponed them until Hitler was done with the East, but the immensely destructive war on the East front would still have happened. What is your recipe for avoiding that one? The USSR retreats to Siberia and lets Hitler take Moscow?
Nor is it very controversial that Stalin was not a nice person and it would have been better if he had behaved differently.
In the particulars, the behavior of Western allies is also substantially criticized. For example, ACOUP on strategic air power
Or take the Internment of Japanese Americans
More options
Context Copy link
That would be a pretty anodyne statement in Christian society. Pilate is not considered a positive figure precisely because he was derelict in his duty and put Jesus to death.
But if Jesus wasn't killed, he couldn't save everyone, right?
If He had died by very slow decay, would that have counted as a sufficient sacrifice by God Incarnate?
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't it a pretty wild idea that the torture and execution of a good man "saves the world"? What's the mechanism there? Sounds a bit like human sacrifice and scapegoating doesn't it? With some magic thrown in.
Unironically yes. The Bible depicts it as a sacrifice: though those who killed Jesus didn’t intend it that way, Jesus did. And if you do a quick search, you will find a million sermons with titles like “Christ our Scapegoat,” referencing the literal scapegoat in Leviticus.
Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, offering himself as a sacrifice to God the Father on behalf of sinners is the mechanism. It’s the core of Christian belief.
Maybe I should try reading the Bible at some point. Is it good literature? :P
There's some novelty in that particular human sacrifice: instead of the victim being labeled evil, he gets labeled god. Which kinda puts a finishing touch to the whole tradition instead of having to find a new scapegoat at each turning. In theory, at least.
Edit: typo
Afaik aztek human sacrifice tradition also held many of the victims in high regard.
More options
Context Copy link
It depends on what parts of the Bible. Some, absolutely. My very-atheist hometown of Portland, OR (suburbs but still) had a "Bible as Literature" English elective class in high school! No, I didn't take it, sadly.
Not all chapters are equal, and it also depends on the translation. KJV has a pretty famous poetic style, though the NRSV keeps a good bit of the charm while updating the language somewhat. Read some famous passages in the ESV though and you might feel like a toddler, it's pretty bad. There's some of the Psalms, of course, parts of Isaiah with nice imagery, the start of Genesis is a bit of a classic. In the New Testament, it's a little more parceled out into particular chapters, though John and Luke are definitely more literary than the other Gospels.
More options
Context Copy link
There are (roughly) two kinds of religiously motivated murders.
One is the sacrifice, where you want to send your god a juicy piece of meat or some virgin pussy or kid as a bribe or tribute. Generally, the sacrifice is a mean to an end, the process is really a transaction between the one sponsoring the sacrifice and god. Sure, you might get extra virtue points for sacrificing your favorite daughter, but if she happens to have her period on the set date you can just sacrifice another daughter. Generally, you want your sacrifices to be pure and hale. Sacrificing a lame goat or a disobeyant child might be seen as an insult, after all.
The other type of murder is a punishment for a religious transgression, real or imagined, such as witchcraft, blasphemy, heresy. This is primarily a matter between the accused and the community, just like a secular crime.
This is well illustrated by the concept of the scapegoat. You start out with two goats. One stays pure and is sacrificed to god, the other gets the sins transferred to it and is then abandoned in the desert, for god to punish it as he wants. Full of sins, it would not make a good sacrifice for god, after all.
While punishments are widespread, pure sacrifices of humans are very much optional for religions. In the religions of the book it only appears (to my knowledge) in YHWH's fucked up little mind games he plays with Abraham, with the sacrifice being stopped. The Romans -- themselves not shy about infanticide -- likewise stamped it out where they could.
Of course, there are also mixed forms. For example, the Christian tradition of burning someone at the stake for religious transgressions is very much reminiscent of burnt sacrifices by earlier religions. I think that sometimes, it is explicitly stated that the purpose of this form of death penalty is to purify the victim so that they can get into heaven despite their crime. This is more seen as a 'favor' to the victim than as a favor to god, but parsing it as "souls for the soul lord!" does not seem entirely wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
It's kind of cliched.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah basically God sacrificing his son patched out the sacrifice dependency.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Scapegoating" itself as a word comes from Jewish tradition where the sins of the entire nation would be laid on a single literal goat who was then released into the wilderness (practically, pushed off a cliff outside town), while another 'innocent' goat would be sacrificed on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year. Jesus literally and symbolically took the role of both being innocent and being sacrificed, and it's quite literal in Christianity that he took on him the sins of the world there, which sins would otherwise prevent us individually from reaching heaven. Reasons for why exactly he was capable of doing this differ across sects but usually are some variant of him being innocent or of godly nature.
In modern discourse being scapegoated is seen as a bad thing (i.e. avoiding responsibility) but Christians would agree that you need some action yourself to obtain this absolution, though it's "free" in a more general sense. Here is the key point where the various sects differ greatly, what action? Some believe that you need to follow some kind of true regret/restitution/prayer process, others that you need to confess to a priest, others that you actually don't have to do anything other than once in your whole life ask for forgiveness and that's it.
Tbh I have wondered before why atheists more militant than me don't harp on about this more. This entire concept relies on an ancient and, by most modern standards, vile concept of morality.
Forget looking at logical contradictions in the bible or the impossibility of miracles described there. The deepest core of christianity requires you to accept that offloading your guilt onto an innocent creature and then punishing that creature instead of you makes any fucking sense whatsoever. And that god accepts this bargain. I think that in any other context most modern christians would consider this an absurdly evil concept.
You mean the animal sacrifice aspect of Judaism? I agree it's definitely seen as somewhat barbaric by modern Western standards but for a good chunk of history it was pretty normal. Still practiced in parts of Hindu India and some Islamic countries, plus in Santería where that's a thing. You have to remember that part of that is because for a lot of history, animals were a major source of wealth. Judaism deliberately requiring the sacrifice of the "firstborn" or most "unblemished" of their flocks served multiple purposes - one, the fact that it was a bit of a waste was kind of the point, showing your devotion via valuable things; two, at least at some points in Jewish history, the meat would be used as a revenue and food source for the Levites, the priest tribe, who otherwise didn't have their own land; three, there's some doctrinal symbolism, both for Christians and Jews although the symbolism's exact flavor varies. I think that's relatively emblematic of the use of animal sacrifice in religion more broadly: ideas about drama, tribute, and symbolism (blood is a very obvious expression of life). I guess obviously, if you feel as a modern atheist that we are overcoming human nature or something, sure it might be
Or do you mean the moral idea of sin and guilt in general? I feel like that's pretty natural and human. People struggle with guilt in non-religious contexts all the time. Wanting someone or something to take away that guilt follows pretty logically. Even psychologists think a certain degree of guilt is healthy - it's more the shame side of things that can be harmful, or when it's excessive.
Edit: What exactly is the vile part? The animal sacrifice (poor animals, barbaric butchery) or the guilt bit? I guess you could consider wanting other people or things to take away guilt as somewhat maladaptive. But a full absolution via zero personal action/responsibilty is not typically the connected belief, except for maybe some born-again Christians, but I think they tend to be the minority, most still feel like some steps of personal improvement or reconciliation are needed (i.e. repentence).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. But the Christian position is that even though the outcome was good, the act was still bad. I've never heard anyone seriously try to argue that killing Jesus was good on a consequentialist basis, anyways.
The Gospel of Judas did.
More options
Context Copy link
I've heard about some ancient Gnostics who argued exactly that. They got excommunicated as heretics.
More options
Context Copy link
There have been people who've taken that line historically. That's the line of the Gospel of Judas, for instance: that Judas was a hero because he caused the Crucifixion, which saved the world.
However, this is obviously heretical, and to my knowledge orthodox Christianity has never had any time for it. The Crucifixion may have been the means by which the world was saved, but it was still nonetheless an evil deed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The idea that it was Pilate's job to follow "due process" and that he was "derelict in his duty" is delightfully ahistorical. The laws which Pilate followed were the laws of Rome. Roman law was not very concerned with the rights of non-citizens, their brothels and salt mines were full of slaves. And Jesus was very much not a Roman citizen. As a military governor, the job ob Pontius Pilate, as far as the Senate was concerned, was to keep the peace and facilitate the extraction of wealth. How he did this was totally up to him. If one day he woke up and decided to drown a tenths of the infants in Jerusalem in boiling pig fat, Rome would only object to that as far as it lead to instability.
The fact that he even personally bothered to preside over the case is more a concession to the political touchiness of the subject than any due process. Quite frankly, the local elites were really pissed at Jesus because he had interfered with their religion by causing a ruckus with the money-changers (which ultimately threatened their business model). And Pilate decided that it would be in Rome's best interests to placate them by putting Jesus to death. Given that the followers of Jesus did not rise up in rebellion, it is hard to argue that he was wrong with his decision. (A Gibbonite would blame the fall of Rome on Christianity, but Pilate could not possibly have foreseen that.)
Quite frankly, by messing with religious institutions, Jesus was kind of asking for it, either intentionally or in a FAFO way. Most places and times did not have strong freedom of speech norms, and Jesus would have fared little better if he had criticized dominant religious practices in pretty much any culture. If he had tried his little stunt in front of the temple of Athena or Saturn or Odin or a medieval cathedral or in early Boston or in front of a mosque in contemporary Tehran or Riyadh or in front of some Buddhist temple in Myanmar, he would have fared little better. Sure, in today's Western world, he might have gotten away with just a night in a prison cell and a fine (or no penalty at all if he had opted to practice his free speech by just demonstrating with a sign "God hates money-changers"), but of all the atrocities committed in the name of Rome, the killing of Jesus likely does not even make the top million.
If we ask what most defines the bad governor the singular example is "He has an innocent man put to death." Whatever the truth of Pilate's reasoning, he was in dereliction of his greater duty to good governance. You call to cold practicality. Kill the innocent rebel, end the movement, prevent instability and possibly save many lives. Those bad but "necessary" decisions don't come from nothing, rather they come as the long consequences of earlier bad decisions and failures. How many seemed necessary at the time?
There is also a nice irony to preventing instability. Jesus, who held tremendous draw, offended the elders. They wanted him killed and they were appeased. Bar Kokhba also had draw; thus went Judea.
More options
Context Copy link
Good points, but it bears pointing out that the Gospels record that Pilate repeatedly said "this man has done no wrong" and that ultimately he declared "his blood isn't on my head, it's on yours". So, our primary sources tell us that he knew damn well that it was a miscarriage of justice and that it was wrong to carry that out (otherwise he wouldn't have disclaimed the guilt). I think it's pretty fair to call that derelict of his duty, since it's apparent from the narrative that his duty was to dispense justice. At best you can say that he had two duties in conflict, but that doesn't mean he didn't neglect one of them.
From the secular perspective, sure. From the Christian perspective (which, remember is what this whole discussion has been about) nothing else can really come close to "killing God" on a list of atrocities. So I would say that depends a great deal on your stance on other things.
According to not-the-gospels Pilate however, Jesus had done wrong and his blood was gladly taken on, as befits the role and dignity of a roman magistrate.
The entirely of the Testimonium Flavium, as we have it today:
That's not "diverged greatly," that's just short.
Without the cinematic parts of washing his hands, calling jesus innocent, saying his blood’s on their heads, it’s normal roman governor behaviour. He’s there to maintain peace and render justice onto the barbarians, there’s zero dereliction of duty in that account. And I don’t appreciate those so-called “christians’“ tarring of a roman senator as a weak-willed incompetent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Historians of Jesus Christ run into a peculiar contradiction when it comes to trying to figure out the precise circumstances of his death. On one hand they need him to be a minor figure of the time that he wouldn't attract the attention of contemporary historians, on the other hand they need something egregious enough that it would lead to extraordinary application of the law.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I was surprised by this as well. All he had to say was, "I'm not familiar with Cooper's work." Heaven forbid Douglas Murray not have an opinion on something. My weak-man take is Murray made an ass out of himself, but I only watched snippets and reactions. Rogan is too long and meandering for my tastes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To the proponents of the "woke right" idea: have you seen any equivalent to "checking your privilege"? As far as I can tell, responses to Minority people participating range from "all hail the great based one", over not treating it any different, to "dont believe that niggerfaggot". But not any specific demands.
Id also like to see your best examples of struggle sessions. I expect this to be less objectively determinable than the above, but worth discussing.
More options
Context Copy link
I do because it propagates a dangerous misconception about what 'woke' means.
'Woke' is having become awakened to the 'reality' that all differences in hierarchy are unjust, i.e. Marxism. If someone makes more money than someone else, or one group is healthier than another, or people from one neighborhood go to jail more often than people from the next neighborhood over, the only explanation is systemic injustice. Someone must have done something evil to exploit someone else -- there's no other way people could end up in such different positions. The explicit demand to 'heal' these 'historical inequities' is to feed the golden geese that are white (and sometimes Asian) males to everyone else until no distinction in outcome remains. That's wokeism. Unfortunately, in real reality, this victory condition is impossible and the whole thing is a road straight to hell.
In contrast, leftists would have you believe that 'woke' means 'interested in ethnic solidarity'. That's not woke. That's just how human beings naturally operate without a lifetime of indoctrination teaching us that preferring our own kind is evil.
When people refer to the "woke right" they're referring to right-wing people who behave like woke people in the sense that they try to censor, cancel, and thought-police those who disagree with them. They aren't saying the woke right is politically woke, they're saying they use the same illiberal tactics as the woke.
'Anti-liberals use illiberal tactics' is a silly kind of thing to complain about.
But also, I don't think it's apples to apples. IME when people on the right are doing this it's often simply trying to get leftists held to any kind of sane standard at all -- saying 'kill all white people' should not be tolerated in polite society, but generally is. Whereas the left, again IME, is generally happy to ruin lives over much less, e.g. refusing to create art celebrating gay 'marriage'.
More options
Context Copy link
Except if that definition were operative it would make no sense for guys like Lindsey, Murray, Kisin or Peterson to talk about the woke right. All four take up the mantle of 'concern for where the discourse is headed' if people they don't like are allowed to speak freely on topics they disagree with.
More options
Context Copy link
Not at all, what they are referring to is people on the right wing who do not buy into liberalism.
Otherwise you're going to have to explain to me when Auron McIntyre has ever done any of these things for Lindsey to coin the term to go after him and his ilk.
More options
Context Copy link
Do the illiberal tactics include trying to scare away Joe Rogan and other people with big platforms from having conversations with certain people? Do they include lumping in people you don't like with nazis? Do they include complaints about online abuse when people start commenting on how you're being ridiculous?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
These strike me as different claims. Wokeness as originally defined was really more about the second one. The moral truth that inequality is unjust was taken for granted from the start; it needn't be "awakened" to. Woke in the original sense was very much about "awakening" to the pervasive-systemic-oppression theory of why inequality of outcomes arises. The two different claims can be believed independently. And more importantly, believing both still doesn't inherently require you to be in favor of censorship/cancel culture.
I think at this point "woke" in colloquial Internetese long ago ceased to have anything to do with the original meaning, and means something more like "leftist Political Correctness thought-policing" whether it's about racial equality or anything else. This is the meaning of "woke" that is then applied to "the woke right" when it begins engaging in similar anti-free-speech behavior for partisan gains.
There's a slight problem here, because from my point of view the
Jedi are evil"anti-woke" are the ones doing this. Trivially: who's the one whinging to Joe Rogan that he shouldn't have so many people with [insert opinion] on?More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair, there is a relatively small but quite loud subset of right-wingers who believe exactly this about Jews. And there are quite many right-wingers who really overestimate the degree to which leftists make their decisions out of deliberate maliciousness and really underestimate the degree to which leftists make those decisions out of a combination of ignorance and pathological empathy. Some right-wingers have even adopted a Rousseauian "man is innocent in the state of nature" attitude, except their idealized pre-modern utopia from which humanity has fallen is some kind of amalgam of ancient martial cultures, 19th century farmsteads, and the 1950s.
That’s a good defining aspect of the woke right.
The discrimination against whites and males, that is on the books, enshrined in government contracts, jurisprudence, harvard. Explicit. Not woke right.
To justify the octopus conspiracies otoh, they have pamphlets from the 19th century, hinting at early life bios of successful people, coded parentheses, jewish media interpretation, and aryan studies. It's all implicit mystery knowledge, like the tenets of scientology. You then become clear, awaken, put on the 'they live' glasses, get a superpower where you don't have to check early life section anymore.
More options
Context Copy link
Can you name people who actually have this as their ideology except random anon accounts on Twitter?
I sense that people like Lomez are probably the closest to what you mean, but he's published enough books that contradict this reading profusely that it seems specious.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, I'd be worried about this more if I thought the tame came about as a result of a genuine misconception. When I'm worried this is used to shut out my ideas, I prefer to play the reverse of the "Please Just Fucking Tell Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand" card, and say "ok, I'm woke right, now address my arguments". It cuts to the chase, puts the ball in their court, and arguably actually lowers the chances of any misconceptions being spread.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Woke right is not a thing: it never was a thing, because actual Nazis, fascists, and white nationalists don't use or accept critical theory. Any resemblance (da joos vs da whitey) is coincidental: the true similarity is that both wokism and fascism are illiberal, but for completely different reasons.
Let us use argumentum ad Hitlerum to demonstrate what I mean. Hitler is uncontroversially a Nazi, a fascist, and a white nationalist. To call him 'woke' is a definitional collapse. He's not building a intersectional coalition against Zionism and its supporters. He has a particular volkgeist and conceptions of ethnic superiority that is not postmodern in the least. (This is why hoteps aren't woke, despite arguably being the originator of the term: they're particular, not universal.)
It's dumb. It's dumb, lazy thinking: liberals playing definitional games and labels as if they mean anything. If you have a problem with white nationalists and cryptonazis, you can say so: that's a popular opinion in normieland. You don't need to invent fake terms that only you and a particular clique define.
Neil Shenvi has a few examples, surely? He cites Stephen Wolfe recommending using CRT's premises, and taking his opponents' weapons and growing stronger by them, and he explicitly refuses to abjure a critical theory approach. Shenvi also cites Abrahamsen to the effect of there being a 'Gramscian right', and credibly cites people like Sam Francis or John Fonte acknowledging Gramsci's influence on their own work.
That seems like a pretty reasonable prima facie case that at least some far-right or white-nationalist-adjacent people are genuinely influenced by critical theory.
I would make the argument that Gramsci's tactics are, by their nature, apolitical: and they are successful enough that even his most hated ideological enemies have adopted them because they are effective and they work. It is impossible to describe what the woke right is without describing it as a reaction to the woke left: its shadow and anima. Perhaps it was inevitable that the right absorb the insights of the left, and not stay static forever. It is an active dialectic, after all.
Note that rightists who know who Gramsci is a vanishingly small clique in any case.
But nevertheless, I wouldn't oversell the impact for 'A Case For White Nationalism' and other works like it. They are very clever works, throwing the prevailing orthodoxy's own logic against it. They have the benefit that woke structures do, in fact, exist to disenfranchise white men, and all they have to do is Observe while their opponents try to explain why their racially discriminatory policies are actually Equitable to a increasingly cynical audience. The woke right only exists in the imaginations of vanguardist liberals, kicked out of the progressive sphere but eager to gatekeep the populist right back to liberalism.
It won't work. But why it won't work is a whole essay in of itself.
If the best methods for advancing your values are completely content-agnostic, then I think theres something wrong with your values. More commonly, people think its must be the best because theyre swimming in modernism, where everyone thinks this because to claim otherwise would be like the naturalistic fallacy. But if, like a christian nationalist presumably does, you actually believe youre in alignment with the natural order, shouldnt this manifest itself in some useable way in real social effects?
Kulturkampf is in of itself a reactionary idea: Gramsci merely applied it to socialism as a tactic to make the masses want socialism organically rather than have it imposed top-down from a vanguardist party. It's a dialectic all the way down.
But as a thought experiment, let's pretend I'm a Christian nationalist: my ideas are so far from the mainstream that sticking to principles is pointless. By default, any tactic or strategy that gets me closer to realizing my ideology is better than nothing. Even if I have to lie and pretend that I'm not a CN: that I'm a secularist or whatever, or pretending to respect democracy when I want to enact a theocratic form of government.
"We'll win, and then decide what our program looks like" is a perfectly reasonable response to extremely hostile enviroments. It worked for Franco, for instance. Acquiring power is the important part. Having principles while not having any power is useless. Compromising on your principles to get it is worth it because having part of your program enacted is better than none. The only people who think otherwise are idealistic intellectuals.
Now the reasons why your original tactics don't work in defiance of your ideology in the first place..? Well, every ideology has some way of papering over that. Marxism has false conciousness and wreckerism, WN has da joos... etc. Hypocrisy and unworkability has never gotten in the way of ideologues anywhere.
Im not talking about "principles", per se. "Burn it all down so that my ideology can inevitably emerge from the ashes" is an asymmetric method as far as Im concerned (though usually not a very good one). Content-agnostic methods are those that, definitionally, everyone can use. If youre ideology is in any way related to how society works, you should have more options available to you.
Another way of looking at it: Yes, christian nationalism is in a very weak position. That means if you only use methods that everyone can use, you should expect to get crushed, since theres a winner-takes-all effect to this, and youre not really any better at it. Why do you think you can win?
I think if your tactics dont work, its generally in your interest to have a think about why.
Let me talk about Gramsci for a moment.
Gramsci came to the (right) conclusion that Italy was not ready for socialism. Socialism in Italy was about as popular as Christian Nationalism is now. Any creation of a socialist regime in Italy would inevitably have to come top-down from a Leninist vanguard party. He was intellectually honest and realized that taking power for the people against the people's wishes was so contradictory as to be unjustifiable.
For similar reasons, America is not amiable to being a Christian nationalist homeland. But nevertheless, he believed it was possible: because he bought into, at some level, Marxist dialectical materialism. Christian nationalists believe they will succeed because God is on their side. You may not accept these reasons as being valid, but they are very real and compelling reasons to them.
By definition, they seek to transform and revolutionize society, but from such a marginal position, all they can do is encourage the development of a civil society that wants to be socialism/christian, etc. The strategy is sound. The reason that it's not done by everyone is that it's hard and requires patience. Only people on the margins of society without any other recourse to more potent levers would try this because success isn't certain in the least.
You're asking for novel and unique tactics from fringe ideologies: but the truth is that there really isn't any. Hitler sums it up in Mein Kampf better than anyone else, in my opinion: parasitizing off an existing movement and repurposing its infrastructure for your own ends. Street violence as self promotion: shows of strength in enemy strongholds. Attract the convincible and use them as leverage to force the establishment to make concessions. Then, when the time is right, seize power. This is virtually identical to Leninist vanguardism in every respect. Culture war is just to shape the intellectual landscape to prime the masses to accept the process of overthrow of bourgoise democracy as natural and necessary.
I suppose if you think that gods commands are entirely unrelated to how he chose to create the world, and will win out purely through some kind of direct intervention (but still you do have to fight with maximum effectiveness for it to happen, any moral scruples and you lose), it would lead to this strategy. But I dont think this specific version just is christian belief, and that its appealing to some ideologues precisely because theyve internalised not believing in a natural order.
You dont think the establishment tries to maintain a civil society that wants them?
Im not saying those tactics cant work - someone is always gonna win. And a brief look at his neighbors and historical context suggests it wasnt just random either. There are propably some ideosyncratic positions of the Nazi party that that won only with them, because Hitler was a great speaker, but the general direction seems to derive from broader factors.
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
The woke right are organized religious people, not nazis.
Christians (and/or Muslims/Jews depending on location) do the exact same type of concern trolling and pearl clutching as the wokes do.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree that it is fundamentally just a lazy attempt to apply a negative label to people the users of the term don’t like. It’s like “the left are the real racists.” It’s supposed to be a “gotcha” but it doesn’t really work in practice.
More options
Context Copy link
Normies are pretty burned out on accusations of nazi and racist and so forth. Also, the target pretty clearly isn't the normie masses, it's an inter-activist fight within what was until now a big-tent coalition on the right.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link