site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 2022

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.

105
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think what the other poster is trying to say is that instrumentally it's much more effective to pretend deference for a while, then do exactly what you are suggesting - migrate to another venue and hopefully keep 'fighting the fight', whatever that means to them.

This type of aggressive and short-sighted thinking is a large reason why censorship has successfully killed off so many communities, in my mind. We are incredibly lucky that the mods had the forethought to migrate the community before we were killed off as well.

To put it another way, do you think Cloudflare would be 'more satisfied' with a successful migration of the community, or with the current situation?

This type of aggressive and short-sighted thinking is not, actually, why censorship has worked, because communities constantly appease and slowly wither rather than do what I say.

If there was a way to prevent the slow withering of these communities, and turn it around to force the state to change, would that be more appealing to you than violence?

ETA: Not that I know of a mystical solution, but I think it is worth finding. Right now I'd tentatively agree that violence is at least a surefire way of getting what you want, if you have the skills to use it well.

Ultimately, though I do sincerely advocate in favor of political violence, it would perhaps be more accurate to say I advocate most for direct and immediate action; I think intelligent people, in this community and others, far too often fall into a mental trap where instead of decisively resolving a situation for better or worse they drag it out because they're afraid. They put too much thought into consequences, too much thought into risk, and inevitably conclude that this fight isn't worth fighting.

And they conclude the next one isn't, either.

And the one after that.

Every time, there are many good, valid, sensible arguments for submission, and a scarcity of sensible arguments for defiance. Yet if you cede all ground because you're afraid of risk, eventually there is no more ground to cede. 'Death before surrender' is not merely a pithy phrase; a group that internalizes that message and acts in accordance with it will make hostile powers think twice and be more cautious, because even if they can win it will happen at a cost.

If you fight, you might lose. This is true. I can't deny it: if the American Right embraced my violent outlook, it is possible I, and people who share my values, would be crushed to paste and die miserably, or be imprisoned, or tortured, or paraded as a vanquished foe as a status symbol for the progressive elite. It's also possible we'd win. It's also possible we'd lose, but exact enough of a blood price from the left that they back off and treat the survivors with more respect and permit more autonomy.

The only guaranteed outcome is that if we always surrender, we definitely lose. You have to be a fighter.

Ultimately, though I do sincerely advocate in favor of political violence

It is very stupid to advocate it somewhere other than your gathering of blood-sworn battle brothers. Whatever allies you hoped to stir to action are mixed with opponents who see you abandon the idea of moral high ground and resign to abandoning theirs.

I'm not hoping to stir anyone to action here, and the left has no high ground to abandon; they've already engaged in rampant, state-backed violence, looting cities, erecting autonomous zones, burning down courthouses, etc., etc.

Their punishment was the election of Joe Biden and the advancement of almost all leftist goals. They embraced naked might and nothing but good things happened to them. I'm long past worrying the left might do something; they are doing it.

Those who say the words are my enemy. Those who bend the knee are my enemy. Those who internalized it are my enemy. I don't care about inscrutable motives and complicated internal states - I care about what you actually do.

'What you actually do' and how many people actually do it can vary very sharply depending on whether they consider you an enemy. The acts you've described are committed and spurred on by an intractable minority of those you have named your enemies. That minority can grow or shrink depending on how you present your side to those who are not intractable.

"They" embraced naked might and optics, and you're not good at them. You were wondering why bad things work for the left tribe but not for yours: if you're at all interested in my opinion, this is why. The real meme magic is to believe in virtue even when your side's loudest and strongest stomp on it. There's nothing more revolting than those who have lost the meme magic, who have lost even the 'right' in 'might makes right' and are left to only worship 'might makes'.

I was not wondering that. I realize tone is difficult to convey on the internet, but the post where I mentioned that was very sarcastic. I disagree with it entirely -- bad things work for anyone with the gumption to commit to them. I am not concerned even slightly with optics, nor do I harbor any confusion over the nature of these conflicts. Meme magic isn't real. Life is a contest of force with an element of chance.

So you're going to tell me that all those words are just a cover for gathering allies for one last fedpost (even though you claimed you do not hope to gain any allies)? If there is no place in life for ideas and ideals, then there is no place for this discussion. Let you be off to committing political violence or else shying away from it in perpetuity, and me be off to believing in my side's core values and watching you self-destruct.

More comments