site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   36006 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Rhodesia is an interesting case in that it is a 60 year old mirror of modern day progressivism. White rule is unacceptable, for equality's sake we will support Mr. Mugabe. We all know how it turned out, but that hasn't stopped the same thing from happening 30 years later in South Africa.

My question is, who at the time was the major force against Rhodesia? Was it the UK and/or Harold Wilson, was it the US and/or Lyndon Johnson? Was it instead a political party? Were these governments happy with the end result, or did they ever say that they made a mistake with Rhodesia? I would guess not, given that they continue to do the same things. Anyone have any extra insight on the who and the why for the putting down the most effective African regimes, which just happened to be white?

The underlying cause is that the zeitgeist in the United States held that de facto white rule over a black majority (even if legally blacks were allowed to vote if they had enough property) was inherently immoral and illegitimate and that the United States as a moral force for democracy and goodness in the world should use whatever tools and powers it has to end white-rule around the world.

Exactly. This was the basic point of little thing going at the time called the "Cold War".

"Who are we and what are we fighting for? We are Free World (TM), we fight for freedom and democracy. We are good guys, because we have freedom and democracy. Commies are bad guys, because they have no freedom and no democracy."

All sorts of dictatorships and colonial regimes on the Western side were obvious contradiction to the foundation premise of Cold War, source of nothing else than massive embarrassment and fodder for enemy propaganda.

Of course, we can imagine alternate worlds where the Cold War is justified differently.

"Who are we and what are we fighting for? We are White World (TM), we fight for White supremacy over colored races forever and ever. We are good guys, because we are White. Commies are bad guys, because they are mongoloid Slavs and Chinks who refuse to understand that their duty is to submit to White Man."

"Who are we and what are we fighting for? We are Christian World (TM), we fight for Jesus. We are good guys, because we love Jesus and Jesus loves us. Commies are bad guys, because they hate Jesus and Jesus hates them.

"Who are we and what are we fighting for? We are Scientific World (TM), we fight for Science, Order, Efficiency and Progress. We are good guys because we are the best and the brightest, the greatest scientists, engineers and organizers. Commies are bad guys, because they are ignorant vodka swilling party hacks bringing nothing than chaos and squalor."

ZANU and FRELIMO were both communist aligned guerrilla groups (or “terrorists” in the vernacular of the day and region) with ZANU supported by China and FRELIMO supported by China and the USSR at the time. Cold War good evil ranks communist vs noncommunist higher than postcolonial vs decolonial.

"Who are we and what are we fighting for? We are White World (TM), we fight for White supremacy over colored races forever and ever. We are good guys, because we are White. Commies are bad guys, because they are mongoloid Slavs and Chinks who refuse to understand that their duty is to submit to White Man."

"Who are we and what are we fighting for? We are Christian World (TM), we fight for Jesus. We are good guys, because we love Jesus and Jesus loves us. Commies are bad guys, because they hate Jesus and Jesus hates them.

"Who are we and what are we fighting for? We are Scientific World (TM), we fight for Science, Order, Efficiency and Progress. We are good guys because we are the best and the brightest, the greatest scientists, engineers and organizers. Commies are bad guys, because they are ignorant vodka swilling party hacks bringing nothing than chaos and squalor."

Well, the first two were tried, weren't they? Expect the first one was tried by Hitler (well, inconsistently, if you consider supporting Japan against the Euro colonial powers, but in some form still), and he lost. The second one was a strong narrative for the United States during the early Cold War, but there was an effort to move past it once it was realized that most of the ideological struggle happened in the Third World, and large parts of the Third World were not Christian at all, or were ruled by secularizing types like Nasser. The third one was a part of the US arsenal for the whole of the Cold War, what else was the Space Race supposed to be? It was pretty effective, but wasn't the be-all-end-all.

Other than that, though, yes, this is exactly it. As said, the great ideological struggle between the West and the East played out in the Third World, and standing foursquare against the colonial elites (and generally against regressive forces - tribal chieftains and others who wanted their peoples to remain in squalor while the modernity was passing them by) was a great card for the Soviet Union to play in that struggle. The West had to come up with their own narrative, and ended up being fairly successful at it, so successful that it was a good idea for them to keep maintaining that narrative even after the Cold War in case new challengers would come up (as they have - China, at least).

The second one was a strong narrative for the United States during the early Cold War, but there was an effort to move past it once it was realized that most of the ideological struggle happened in the Third World, and large parts of the Third World were not Christian at all, or were ruled by secularizing types like Nasser.

Cold war, especially early Cold War, religiosity was milquetoast nondenominational "judeochristian" faith, no burning religious zeal was welcomed at the time. Teleevangelists talking about Armageddon came much later.

It was about gestures like "In God We Trust" on money to remind godless commies that they might own a dollar for the time, but they are themselves owned by America.

There were attempts of specifically Christian resistance against USSR (link courtesy of our poster @Carlsbad). They were not succesful.

https://twitter.com/pompilivs/status/1596879002215800832

(of course, when you are shithole country so broke you cannot afford more than 15 minutes of radio per day and have to beg big brother even for few airplanes, you do not get to play "geopolitically independent force")

Other than that, though, yes, this is exactly it. As said, the great ideological struggle between the West and the East played out in the Third World, and standing foursquare against the colonial elites (and generally against regressive forces - tribal chieftains and others who wanted their peoples to remain in squalor while the modernity was passing them by) was a great card for the Soviet Union to play in that struggle. The West had to come up with their own narrative, and ended up being fairly successful at it, so successful that it was a good idea for them to keep maintaining that narrative even after the Cold War in case new challengers would come up (as they have - China, at least).

For the second round of Cold War, freedom and democracy went to the back burner (when was the last time you hear Western politician boasting about "free world"), and it looks that LGBTQ+ values will be the main western point.

This is something with less appeal than previous round's offer, but compared with Russian and Chinese raw gangsterism even substandard ideology looks good.

Eh, the US had no trouble backing dictatorships in Latin America or Asia. Rhodesia in particular aroused US ire, in large part because it was unapologetically colonialist.

Controversial opinion that I don't have time to write an effort post for: I think the causality you propose is backwards. The American liberal establishment was "anti-racist" because it was a way for them to feel good about themselves and feel morally superior to the American populist right. They wanted to push "anti-racism" abroad for the same reasons. Justifying pushing anti-racism abroad as an anti-Soviet Cold War strategy was a way to get moderate conservatives on board with the policy, it was not the underlying motivation for the policy.

So your contention is that Rhodesia was an incidental casualty for Cold War narrative points? Then why did they do exactly the same thing to RSA three years after the USSR collapsed?

Nothing accidental. We are talking about basic and non negotiable Western values of the time, values no one could openly spit on, even when he one claimed to be an "ally", especially when one was an ally.

"Our tribe was always loyal ally of our friend King of Spain, we were fighting together with him for a long time, why he continues to send missionaries to badger us and insult our faith? Why cannot he respect our traditions, why cannot he see that our religion is as valid as his?"

Apartheid collapsed because the white population was tired of fighting an endless insurgency against a population that outnumbered them. US opposition to the system was one factor, sure, but it wasn’t decisive.

The processes that led to the eventual collapse of apartheid started during the Cold War, and winning the Cold War didn't mean that the US could just give up and rest on its laurels instead of guarding its ideological flank against potential challengers (though arguably it did lead to a domestic culture war freeze for something like 15-20 years, which is why people now remiscine over the 90s and 00s as the time when you could still make jokes and stay stuff without people getting angry, or the Golden Years of online debate etc.)

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats