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 -
There is no gun that can shoot Cloudflare. There is no action that can be taken against Cloudflare now or in the future. Cloudflare wants them gone, and is committed to their existential termination. Bowing down to them is simply pathetic behavior that will not change the outcome. Groveling is always the wrong move, even if they can find no other refuge.
Cloudflare is not a charging bull. It's not a mindless animal. It's a collection of thinking, reasoned sadists, who want Kiwifarms gone but more than that want Kiwifarms humiliated and broken. Being removed is inevitable; giving Cloudflare more satisfaction is wholly unnecessary.
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.
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.
'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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
"If you behave like a rabid dog, don't be surprised if you get taken behind the shed and shot"
It is easy to mistake the leeriness of members of a society you find yourself opposing some key elements of for irredeemable, minus-infinity-level hostility that the only dignified response for you is to fight with all your might, but the natural consequence is then that every time you fight back against someone, more members get leery of you, until you are left standing alone against everyone. Sometimes dissidents who contain their righteous anger and try to work with those organs of society that are predisposed against them fail miserably anyway, but it seems quite clear that 100% of those that do not contain it do. Of course, it may be that you value a great chance of coming out looking more dignified to yourself in your loss higher than a small chance of not losing, but then forgive me if I don't want to participate in your particular rebellion and prefer one that is in it for victory rather than aesthetics.
Strange - I see large segments of society behave like rabid dogs, and instead of being shot they secure victory after victory and bathe in endless rewards for mashing defect in the prisoner's game we call coexistence. How curious that society bends over backwards to appease left-approved violence, but right-approved violence is surely doomed to failure. Why, it must just be a simple rule of nature that bad things only work for leftists.
Alternatively, perhaps bad things just work, period, and there's an influential chunk of society keenly interested in making sure their enemy tribe doesn't realize this.
this is exactly what moldbug's terrorism as folk activism or breivik was about. The left can kill and smash as much as they want because they're left wing, and because SOME in power supported them. If you shoot keffals, nobody's gonna support you. No NLG will break you out. No politicians will pardon you. You'll just be all over the internet as christchurch 2, shooting a bunch of fweaking innocent people for no reason, evil right wingers are a threat to society.
More options
Context Copy link
The problem is that in this metaphor, capturing (and, of course, exaggerating) the vast difference in institutional power, only you are the dog. A dog can see its fellow dogs getting kicked, dragged around by the leash and euthanised by "rabid" humans, but lashing out at its human owner when the human owner already thinks of it as a problem dog will lead to worse outcomes than, say, becoming the maximally instagrammable pomeranian that has trained its dog mommy so much that it's really not clear anymore who exactly owns whom.
"How curious that society bends over backwards to appease human-approved violence, but dog-approved violence is surely doomed to failure"
A sufficiently brutish dog can kill a full-grown man. If you must lose, take someone down with you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Alternatively, maybe things only work for leftists, good or bad.
Yeah, that's certainly something the leftist leviathan would want to convince people of. Color me skeptical.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is about where I am, too. It seems that the moral high ground is more of a cliff edge off which you will inevitably be pushed.
You remember the post about how a system that optimises for only one metric will eventually end up sacrificing all others in pursuit of it? It's that, and the criteria is victory. You're either willing to sacrifice everything to win, or you're destined to lose.
You have to be willing to burn and salt the earth.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Agreed. Personally the fact that modern society has by and large rejected using outright, violent force to solve disputes is something that makes me quite happy.
If we start to push violence against others as a way to settle disputes, we risk falling back into the pre-modern hellhole of constant warfare and massive, cyclical societal devastation.
It's easy to reject using force when you already control all the other means of solving disputes.
Hmmm good point. I don't reject using force per-se, but I'm more inline with curiously_straight_CA that if you're going to use force, especially against the progressive leviathan, you had better be damn sure it works. 'If you come at the king, you'd best not miss' and all that. That's my more fundamental disagreement with this line of thinking.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This doesn't make sense given the way cloudflare acted. Probably Prince genuinely wanted to keep them, and chose to ban them for a variety of complicated (this does not imply good) reasons. I'm suggesting there were ways to influence the contingencies such that kiwi might've survived longer. The long article about "why we wouldn't refuse services" and then immediately after banning for supposed extreme risk isn't compatible with cloudflare "wanting them gone, certainly, entirely", because ... of how long prince kept them when most other companies wouldn't have. they could've just kicked kiwifarms years ago, there've been several such campaigns in the past. Again, this doesn't mean they wouldn't have anyway in practice, no matter what they did, i'm not sure tbh.
can you clarify the context in which you argue this? Groveling is a very useful move for people, organizations, even nations, and has saved many from death - which is why it exists. And "temporarily banning certain words in the thread" (and - not even telling anyone you're doing that) is not groveling in any obvious sense.
this doesn't make sense at all. cloudflare kept kiwifarms up until a large social media campaign to drop them. and ... "sadists"? what? how are they sadists? "humiliated and broken"?
Even if the libs/cathedral/etc are your mortal enemy in every possible way, that doesn't mean they are "sadists" and "want to humiliate cloudflare in every way because they are sadists".
Hard disagree. It makes perfect sense as I've argued elsewhere, which is how I was able to accurately predict Cloudflare's actions and was not caught off guard, unlike many who thought differently. Cloudflare is a tentacle of Left, Inc., and its facade of libertarian attitude is a relic of Old Internet mores which no longer exist and are no longer believed in. The progressive leviathan will continue to crush, oppress, and destroy, and there is nothing anyone can do to change it from the inside. No matter how much you beg your masters to take pity on you, they will not. They do not have it in their hearts.
The only path to success, long-term, is a total rejection of the progressive beast. Gather state power and martial power; accumulate resources; take both legal and extra-legal means to inflict harm on the corporations and the people that comprise them.
You know what won't stop Keffals? Fedposting bomb threats. You know what would stop Keffals? Actually doing it. You know what won't sway Prince? Apologizing, groveling, sniveling, accommodating. You know what would? Imposing costs on him as a person.
This is something the progressives have learned much, much better than non-progressives, for whatever reason. Progressives have a total war mentality. It works.
It's absolutely groveling in an obvious sense. It's the same thing Zorba did with AEO on Reddit for ages, with the end result being we're all here, anyway. Sucking off your betters so that they can enjoy the sadistic thrill of watching you squirm unhappily might buy you some time, but it will never actually lead to a good outcome for you. Just bite it.
That's just unfalsifiable booing better suited for the other place. "Everything someone does that's aligned with people I hate is evidence of them being a tentacle of The Devil, and everything they do that isn't is just a relic".
"This is unfalsifiable booing", sun declares, seemingly wholly unaware that Cloudflare did in fact just betray all their nominal principles in service to the agenda of Left, Inc.
Yeah, no. It's been falsified. Deal with it.
Being a tentacle would imply that they were one all along.
Whether you want to believe they've always been one, or are only one now, is your prerogative. So long as we're clear that they are.
There are those who have internalized the ideology, and there are those who were forced to bend the knee and say the words, and there are those who say the words not when forced but out of habit. You seem to conflate all those groups into Tentacles. Not very good for your strategy, if true.
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.
Cloudflare booted Kiwifarms at the behest of Left, Inc. Cloudflare is thus part of Left, Inc, and I will treat them as such. If you want to argue they only did it under duress, that's fine. I don't care. "I'm your friend so long as it's easy" means you're not my friend.
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
Do you not think the fact that these 'betters' enjoy flexing their power is a weakness that can be exploited, even if you subscribe to a total war mindset?
In theory, sure, you could kowtow to a sadist so they lower their guard. In practice, there's no real way for Kiwifarms to do that to Cloudflare. What would them dropping their guard even look like?
Dropping their guard would theoretically be allowing Kiwifarms to continue to exist while they stealthily exit to another platform, and continue to keep up the same style of discourse that existed there pre-migration.
You mean that thing they've been doing for years, which led to them getting booted anyway. You need to actually make an exit strategy if you're going to do that.
Ahh, I see I am not up to speed on the history of the site. I had no idea that the Cathedral had been so ruthless in its pursuit of internet deviants. This is certainly more troubling than I thought.
I tend to hope that crytographic blockchains will develop to a point where we can have a technological solution to the problem of state censorship, at least for a time. I haven't seen many other promising options myself.
I agree with you that there is a time for violent resistance to a regime, but I still hold that we aren't currently in that position. Things have room to get much worse before I could justify such action.
This was not Kiwifarm's first brush with the specter of censorship and deplatforming. In the past, they've tried to comply, much like how TheMotte on Reddit strove to comply with Anti-Evil Operations. This can indeed buy time, but only a finite quantity.
And that's fine, re: your threshold. I support violence before reaching that point, because once things are super terrible it's much harder to fight back.
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
But it "proves too much" - if cloudflare was entirely anti-kiwifarms, they would've folded in 2017, surely?
there are literally multiple different people in cloudflare. Prince is the CEO and as such probably makes decisions, but he does so for reasons, needs to make his people happy, investors, customers, etc.
Actually killing keffals would ... uh ... not help stop progressives? It'd give them way more reason to fight back, while not materially impacting them at all (he's a random trans streamer popular on twitter). You'd argue that the way to stop christians was showing jesus's body really obviously on the cross, making it crystal clear his hands were bleeding, just in case any peasants missed it. Tell the world about john brown, so they learn from his example!
Okay, so you're kicked, then you bite. And what happens to dogs that bite? They get put down. This is the strategy - "this dog is dangerous. he bites when we kick him". Provoke the right, use their fighting back as an excuse to totally destroy them. Biting doesn't stop the progressives. Actually taking power would - killing keffals takes as much power away from progressives as calling them 'racist' does
It's fun to make your enemies squirm. It's fun to make them obey you. It's fun to gather them in one place as a harmless boogeyman you can point to to help conjure up public support and sympathy. Up until they stop being so harmless, and someone actually wants to send a message, at which point there is nothing that can be done.
Agreed. Prince is the most public-facing of the tentacles, not the only one.
I am still unsure to what extent I can advocate political violence here. Suffice to say "if you kill your enemies they win" was silly when Trudeau said it, and it's silly when you say it. You would in fact stop progressivism in its tracks if being a degenerate strongly elevated your risk of death. See: why even the woke don't tend to touch Islam.
We're not going to be as strict as we were on reddit, where we had to consider what an admin might (un)reasonably consider a threat of violence, but that doesn't mean a free reign on fedposting.
Oh, you can rest assured I won't fedpost here. Fedposting is pointless; if you have actual plans, don't publicize them, and if you're recruiting, don't do so online, that's how you get glowies. I am not advocating for any specific, imminent illegal action, but I am asserting the moral and philosophical soundness of accepting violence as a means of conflict resolution.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you commanded the US military and they took control of every central corporate office, every think tank, every executive agency, the internet, resisting law enforcement, significant courts, et cetera - either by killing or imprisonment (or just lustration) - then, yes, you win.
If you kill keffals, you don't win. It doesn't do anything, besides getting people mad. Keffals is a twitch streamer who posts about being trans on twitter.
You do not need to command a state or a military or a corporate office. Islamic terrorism is effective, consistently effective, because it is personal and unstoppable on a human level. No amount of political or social influence can stop the sheer mind-numbing fear of death that comes from a devoted and violent enemy.
Violence works. It has worked all throughout human history. Violence is the truest and most honest form of conflict resolution that exists, and it cuts through all bullshit. Violence's only downside is that once you commit to it your life is endangered, and so people shy away from it. But if you can cross that threshold, if you can accept you have no future that isn't soaked in your own blood, you can wield a level of power rivaling any President, any dictator, any CEO.
All power is a proxy for violence. At its core, influence of any kind is the ability to have violence inflicted on someone. When you embrace the violence yourself, you are power.
Why are you counting Islamic countries as a success story? I certainly would not want to live in an Islamic country, they have also been beaten by the Cathedral by being forced to a far weaker form of statehood than their natural resources should allow.
For instance, look at Norway - they have similar amounts of natural resources but played along with the progressive beast to some extent, even though they haven't joined the EU formally. Even though they have a much more socialized system, Norway still has a surprising amount of anti-woke thought and is not as censored as the US.
Islamic countries are terrible. Islamic terrorists are remarkably effective at coercing non-Islamic entities into appeasement and craven tolerance. I am praising the latter, not the former.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
yeah, and the same applies to the right, except worse because the progs control the state or whatever, so they just use the entire power of the state as the justified violent enemy to suppress the right. Guerilla movements only work because there isn't will to violently suppress them. And if rightoids start suicide bombing innocent trans people, there will be will to suppress them!
Yes, that's war. People on both sides die. It's why we use proxies, so that people don't have to die en masse. But the more faith in the proxies falters, the more one side dominates the processes and subverts the systems, the more reason there is to abandon the proxies.
I've said elsewhere we will not have a second Civil War. I stand by that. But we will have violent troubles.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link