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 -
I'm a liberal who's been here for a while but doesn't post very frequently. I wanted to argue about the core disagreement I think I have with the prevailing political views and values on this forum. Specifically, whether this disagreement is real or just against a strawman, and if it is real, what are the best reasons why the disagreement is not serious enough to justify conclusions like "despite all their craziness, I would rather the woke have power than people with TheMotte-like views".
I think the prevailing views and values here are anti-individualistic and anti-meritocratic. To make more precise how I'm using these terms
Individualism means people should be judged based on their own personal qualities and actions instead of based on groups that people assign them membership to. Since the groups someone belongs to often give you information about their personal qualities, this needs to be made more precise as a conditional independence statement: conditional on someone's personal qualities and choices, judgements about them, their obligations, what they deserve, etc. should be independent of the groups they belong to.
Meritocracy means that positions of influence and power should be given to those best able to wield them in service of society's goals. While you can get into a lot of arguments about what society's goals should be in corner cases, for most practical decisions---who should become a doctor/lawyer, who should get research funding, who should run a company---this rounds off to two soft consideration: competence, that when someone wants to do something related to their position, they actually can, and personal virtue, that people don't use their position in ways that help themselves at the the expense of others.
The first point of argument is whether these definitions are reasonable and deserve the good connotations that "meritocracy" and "individualism" have. Therefore we should discuss what the point of these terms is and why they're considered good things:
Individualism is important for motivation---if people know that they're life outcomes are dependent only on them and their choices, then they have the strongest possible motivation for improving themselves as much as possible. Secondly, most people are happiest when they have a sense of agency and control over their lives. Individualism maximizes this control.
Meritocracy is important to make society as effective as possible in achieving its goals---this is the standard "if a surgeon is operating on you, you want to surgeon to be as competent as possible" argument.
Note that neither of these justifications are about "fairness" or anything like that (even though they line up with a many widely-held intuitions about fairness); they're both just very powerful instruments for achieving whatever terminal values society actually has at the bottom.
Now as for why I think this place does not follow these values, it might be most productive to focus on a very specific example instead of a billion arguments about racism, skilled immigration etc. A few weeks ago, J.D. Vance made a statement that citizenship in the US should be based on ancestry instead of individual choices and beliefs:
I am under the impression that most posters here who care about American politics would 99% endorse this statement, even though it's pretty strongly violating meritocracy and individualism---judging people based on what their ancestors were regardless of their own qualities and competencies. Now, in the quote the the alternative is judging based on if "you agree with progressive liberalism in 2025" for rhetorical punch, but the way it's framed, he likely would also be against the alternative of e.g, "whether you agree with 1995 tolerance and colorblindness"---otherwise the entire frame of the argument wouldn't be against deciding belonging based on personal choices.
So now the specific questions:
Does this place actually overwhelmingly support JD Vance's statement?
Is this statement actually anti-individualistic and anti-meritocratic as defined above?
Are the above interpretations of meritocracy and individualism reasonable and consistent with anti-individualism and anti-meritocracy being very bad things or are they just word games?
I think in one of your past posts you called yourself "a one issue voter on the subject of identity", and as time goes on I think I agree with you more and more... in a very Anakin and Padme kind of way... In any case, yes, it's one of the most important questions of our time, though I'm somewhat frustrated by the conversation not really going anywhere, and just getting restarted every few months.
You focus on the disagreement with the part where he says having ancestors that fought the civil war grants you a stronger claim to the country than agreeing with it's creed, but can you talk about your agreement with the concept of the "credal nation"? Vance picked "agreement with the ADL" as a criterion for adherence to the American creed, would that something you agree with? If not that specifically, what would you say is the American creed? If we're going by the credal nation, and the historical core principles of the USA, doesn't that imply that any socialist, communist, critical theorist, non-liberal feminist, devout Muslim or black separatist, can be deported on sight? Regardless of whether or not he was born there, and regardless of any heritage?
That's a very collectivist question, woudn't you say? But if you want my personal opinion, I agree with his statement.
I think the most you can get is "anti-individualistic", and once someone takes that on the chin, claims of "anti-meritocracy" start falling apart. For example, does Ukraine have to hire a Russian general as there supreme commander of their armed forces, if his resume looks better, or else accept they're being "anti-meritocratic"?
That's probably the most complex question you asked here. Yeah, sometimes people play word games. Sometimes consciously, because they want to win, sometimes unconsciously, because they really like the idea of something being true. Sometimes a completely sincere person uses the exact same argument that a 100%-dishonest word-game-player.
Either way, I don't think you're playing word games, but I disagree with either your basic assumptions, or a logical step you're taking somewhere, but I'm not sure which.
More options
Context Copy link
"This place" can't support anything, not unless we form a representative government and give it the rights to represent us in this matter. That's certainly not what I am here for. I think if you want to talk to people, talk to people. If you want to fish for a sweeping statements like "this place is full of X", whatever X is, please don't. Yes, for some values of X it may be true, but it's not the point of the thing.
I personally think Vance's statement makes sense - if somebody traces their ancestry from before the Civil War they certainly should not be excluded when defining what "America" is.
No. This statement does not say America must only be hereditarian, it says common history must not be excluded. I think this is true - while for a startup nation, bare idea may be enough, for the nation with 250-year old culture history is a big part of it. True, 250 years is not a lot, some nations measure in millenia, but it's enough to consider it seriously and not throw it out, especially because of momentary partisan considerations.
I don't think you are describing the content of this statement properly. The proper description would be that Vance thinks just individual choices and beliefs are not enough to make somebody an American, but being a part of ancestry that created the culture we now call "America" may also be considered as a factor. If you lived somewhere in Galapagos Islands and you've just read the Declaration of Independence and you thought "actually these guys have some pretty decent ideas!" that doesn't automatically make you an American. You can become an American, and maybe you will, but you are not yet are. I don't see anything wrong with this claim.
Moreover, Vance specifically said he does not have the answer to the question of what is an American, and only calls to begin working it out. Presenting it as he already prescribed the "ancestry" answer gives me the strong "fine people" vibe. This is not a good way to conduct a discussion.
No, the definition of individualism does not exclude considering the individual's history or culture. No person exists as an island, people are social animals, and being a social animal means being part of the culture. And culture is rooted in history and ancestry. True, history and ancestry does not define the individual, as doesn't genetics or, in general, any wide-area criteria - it's impossible to define an individual by metrics that count in millions. But that doesn't mean those are to be completely ignored. Cultures exist, and individuals are heavily influenced by them. That does not deny the fact that the individual has to be evaluated on their personal merits, at least when it is possible. But one also has to realize these merits do not come from nothing. Ancestry is not the destiny, but it's often the foundation.
The tools you have described are indeed powerful, but they are secondary to defining the goals. To illustrate that, let's abstract them out and define a quality called "awesomeness". The person is more awesome if they are more efficient in achieving whatever they want to achieve. Looks good so far? Now, do we want to have more awesome people? Do we want to make immigration policy depend on awesomeness - the more awesome you are, the higher your chance for a citizenship. Before you answer, consider an awesome drug addict, an awesome psychopath, an awesome flat Earth cultist, an awesome Islamic (or, if you wish, Christian) fundamentalist. Does "awesomeness" looks as good as before, or do you want to put something in front of it? And if so, what exactly?
More options
Context Copy link
I find it more interesting that this is a statement I've seen voiced by others in the past few years, that's only come up recently. That we have the Vice President of the United States voicing this aloud indicates... well, it certainly indicates something.
Part of the issue, I feel, with modern immigration is that people have bought into the myth and propaganda, and if you question this, you're, well, a bad person. 'Give us your tired, your huddled masses, your poor' is basically good advertisement, but it doesn't reflect the reality on the ground. 'Melting pot', too, was a statement by a visitor from Europe to describe New York City, and I can't help but feel trying to make all of America look like New York City makes my skin crawl.
As far as mythology goes, again, I feel that people have this mistaken assumption that people just came into the US during the heyday of 20th century immigration and merely stayed and settled. Not true. In truth, it was a two-way free-flow of people that came to the US to make their fortune and then left if they couldn't do so.
Source
More, was serious concern over said glut of immigration, to the point where moratoriums came down to stifle said flow of people because of concerns regarding the people that actually lived there.
More, as someone whom considers himself... well, I can't say 'amateur', I won't grace myself with such a title, so let's call me a 'dabbling fumbler of a historian' - someone who's looked into the past on this topic, the one thing I never see brought up in regards to early 20th century immigration is the one of distance and time. I go to local places that were settled as ethnic enclaves and I put myself back in the days of yore, both in terms of distance and logistics, and I come to a stark realization - people talk of this 'founding myth' of immigration for America as if it perfectly applies to the modern age, and, no, it doesn't - because these were groups of people who basically came to America, staked out a section of land days travel from others in the middle of nowhere, and lived their lives, alone and away from others and not causing any trouble.
We don't have that today. Travel from port city to said settlements take days back then of hard travel now take a few hours at worst. We have a free flow of people undreamt of in the past, over vast distances and in a fairly trivial fashion. What would take places in another section of your own county could be ignored with a fair amount of ease if you so wished - now we need to pay attention to what occurs in other states because the people over there could very easily come over here with all their issues and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
Talk of meritocracy and individualism applied to Immigration is a bad argument from the get go, I feel, because it's based on a host of assumptions that are not historical truth. America was never a melting pot, it was a crucible - one that people could leave and did so. And even if they stayed without being a success, they were not necessarily a failure, as they could simply live their lives without bothering anyone and not being bothered in turn.
That age of history is done and gone. We no longer have that luxury. The myths of yesteryear may speak of something that people want to be true, an ideal to aspire to, but the set of circumstances that allowed for that myth to flourish no longer exist, and it's time people acknowledge that. We can't look to the past for solutions, because the past people expect to find never existed, and the solutions that did exist people don't want to use.
TLDR: While I'm sure there are applicable arguments about Meritocracy and Individualism, I feel this is a bad one built upon bad assumptions and so I'm dismissing it entirely in favor of focusing on other aspects.
More options
Context Copy link
Taking a step back, I think you are begging the question by smuggling in the premise that the principal test of someone's stances on individualism and meritocracy should be whether they are in favour of granting or withholding American citizenship on individualistic and meritocratic criteria. I think that most right-wingers, and many people more accurately described as "left-wing heretics", disagree with the idea that citizenship is or should be anything like an award, reward, occupation, office or responsibility, which are the things whose distribution based on merit are what is usually taken to define a meritocracy.
Imagine a strange world in which there is a real broad-based political movement holding that family membership should be treated like a public-sector job. Your sister, who is an adherent of this movement, says she got a strong application from India for the position of your father - the candidate is stronger and healthier than your current dad, has better educational credentials (a degree from an IIT in parenting, even!), and in fact a narrow majority of your present family members were polled and found to have much better alignment with his values. In that world, if you were deeply opposed to the idea of replacing your dad with the Indian candidate (or even just admitting him as a second dad), do you think you would have to hand in your individualist meritocrat card?
If yes, sure, you are at least consistent - get in touch so we can work on putting out some ads for any family positions our present system might let us legally fill with better-qualified individuals. There are however strong arguments for the "no" answer here: the uses and expectations of family membership are so far removed from any standard transactional notions of merit that it is nonsensical to award it based on them - you are expected to spend all your time around family members, sacrifice for them even to your own straight detriment if they need it (and expect that they would to do so for you, even if this hypothetical is one that will never come to pass in reality; your washing and clothing a paraplegic relative is not in expectation that they might actually repay it), and share illegible life experience that is only cross-applicable because you are actually genetically similar.
Many will hold that citizenship is the same! After all, you do have to spend time around your countrymen, benefit from illegible cross-applicability of life experiences (progressives would be the first to tell me that something as random as skin cream formulations might unexpectedly not work as well for people who are genetically far from those that they were optimised for!), and sometimes sacrifice for them in the purely hypothetical expectation that they would do the same for you (whether it is a small sacrifice for someone else's big benefit, like paying taxes that go into medical benefits, or a big sacrifice for everyone else's small benefit, like going to war and dying).
Of course, there is also a sort of third answer, that the family example was contrived because the notion of merit was not right. All these things - genetic similarity, giving other family members the lizard-brain reassurance that comes from looking and smelling like them, willingness to sacrifice for them - are what is asked of family members, so your slightly deadbeat dad is in fact the most meritorious candidate. Only, if you lift this answer back to citizenship, you get an answer that you may not be happy with either, which is that JD Vance was also being perfectly meritocratic there! It's just that the main qualifications for American citizens are "convince yourself and others that your ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War", "be genetically close to white Anglos" and "be someone the current residents of America would like as their neighbour".
(@OracleOutlook had a similar response so I hope this works as a reply to both)
First, since citizenship in certain countries has such a huge material impact, it is a "reward" whether people want to think of it that way or not. I think your argument boils down to saying that citizenship has some extra, special qualities that make thinking of it as a reward misleading word games.
The special quality you're focusing on is an analogy to family membership. There are two reasons why I think family membership is special
Of these two, only the first really applies to citizenship---that's easily resolved by rules against making someone stateless. So with that one exception, it should be fine to reason about citizenship as other rewards, particularly positions in other sorts of large organizations. Sacrifices happen in these too!
Are there other important special qualities of citizenship over other material rewards that would change this?
P.S. I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that genetic similarity is the best way to judge if you can relate to someone. Here, education, values, and interests seem to matter much more. It's way easier for me to relate to a random mathematician of any race than a random person of the same race as me. I don't think this is that unusual---at the very least, having a college degree is probably more relevant to relatability for you than race.
I don't understand your argument there - these rules exist as international agreements that are generally fairly well-respected, so doesn't that in fact make citizenship more like family, and therefore make moral intuitions about family membership more applicable to citizenship?
I think @OracleOutlook's response below already addressed the most important ones, so I'll just +1 it.
I think that in saying this, you also betray an interesting conflation of two different understandings of what meritocracy is. One of them is a sort of deontological one, under which to be a meritocrat is to hold that it is morally right that boons go to the most meritorious, while the other is more utilitarian, where to be a meritocrat is to say that granting awards and positions to the best is the optimal way to organise a society.
Your responses seem to place you in the former camp, while many of your interlocutors consider themselves to be meritocrats in the latter sense. As usual, non-central examples are the ones that really put the differences between deontologists and utilitarians in relief. The utilitarian case for meritocracy seems strong, but in reality most of its strength is concentrated in theoretical argument and precedent for the beneficial effects of central examples of it, that is, meritocratic distribution of awards and public positions within a nation. There is little to no precedent for meritocratic award of citizenship (outside maybe of the occasional microstate selling it), and a good volume of theoretical argument against it that is unique to the nationality case (see OracleOutlook's and my own response). Accordingly, the utilitarian who sees himself as a meritocrat because the benefits of meritocracy are well-supported will be parsing this label as referring to the well-supported core of meritocracy only, and not feel particularly compelled to support meritocratic award of citizenship either on the basis of "meritocracy is good" (deontologism!) or "how can you claim to be a meritocrat otherwise" (word games? virtue ethics?).
On an individual level, I don't deny that background winds up being more relevant (though it is by no means everything - my SO is in fact a random mathematician of [not my ethnicity], and for the least controversial example where genetic distance still rears its ugly head, when we are both sick, we can not eat the same things), but nobody is about to run a country that is all mathematicians. On a population level, all these individual values and interests and social niches level out - the Japanese mathematician and the Mexican mathematician might get along swimmingly, but if the Mexican mathematician then has a kid with his Mexican mathematician wife and it is sent to a kindergarten to be watched by the Japanese mathematician's kindergarten teacher cousin, I figure there will be friction.
This is interesting! I do think I disagree with the deontological case for boons going to the most "meritorious." It's usually sheer luck and good external factors (genetics, environment) that puts people on the top. It's not always the "most diligent" person who gets the best compensation. And if we did sort society based on something that is within people's control, (like "works hardest") instead of things outside people's control (like "is smartest") then it would overall be a worse society.
People didn't actually do anything worthy of merit to be the smartest, best looking, most talented, etc. At best they worked hard to improve on something that was already there, but that doesn't mean they worked harder than someone who is disabled and works twice as hard to do half as much.
But if you want to incentivize the best to do their best, you need to give them the best rewards. And it is one of the jobs of society to incentivize the best to do their best, partly because a rising tide lifts all boats. In this regard I follow the utilitarian model it seems.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
(this didn't ping me but fortunately I saw it while scrolling.)
See, here the analogy deepens further! Citizenship in certain countries has a huge material impact, but so also with families! I hit the jackpot by being born into a family where they didn't beat me, prioritized my education, didn't molest me, etc. I did not earn this. It was not my reward to be born into a good family or a good country. How can someone earn such a thing? To describe it in such terms cheapens it.
I'd like you to elaborate on what you mean a family membership is special compared to. Compared to Rousseau liberalism where everyone is born as individuals with no prior obligations who only relate to each other through contracts? Special compared to something else?
There are more than a few other traits that make a family and a nation special. For one, I would die for my children and I would die for my country. This makes absolutely zero sense if you view a country as a community of like-minded individuals who can be swapped around if their opinions shift. If your country has no relation to you after you are dead, buried, and opinion-less then there is no reason to die for it. But if your country will also be the country of your nieces and nephews, second and third cousins, dearest friends and their children, then perhaps it is possible to die for it.
And countries need people to die for them lest they will be ruled by those willing to die for theirs.
That's just one thing, perhaps the biggest. But there are so many ways in which a nation is different than a free market meritocracy - common goods like roads and utilities and schools and on and on. And these items are paid for collectively, sometimes financed on the futures of generations to come. Which implies, for these goods to exist, that these generations do come and have a pre-existing duty to the land of their birth to pay for the good things that were given to them and their forefathers.
Would you like an anarchy instead? Because only in an anarchy is there any kind of liberalism to the extent that a country could be just like a "large voluntary organization."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think you're wrong, exactly, but I think you're ignoring an important dimension of the disagreement. That being the distinction between positive and negative rights (freedom from vs freedom to).
The traditional American view of rights is almost entirely negative, and each of the amendments in the bill of rights that grants a specific right frames it as a negative right (generally the right to be free from some government action).
Rights during/post FDR tend to be framed as positive rights (new deal/great society), or possibly "entitlements".
Your distinction is important, but I don't think it can be understood properly without examining the underlying disagreement about rights.
More options
Context Copy link
First, the immediately preceding paragraphs to the quote, might be relevant context I will put below. This is at risk of drifting too much from your prompt, but I feel like they are pretty important and the excerpt doesn’t stand alone. (Also I am an avowed moderate so might not be the intended audience)
I think Vance is using a straw man here. He even kind of acknowledges it (charitably it’s a rhetorical device at best). Are there really many influential political people who think this is the sole criteria for immigration? Don't think so.
I think it’s fair to say the far left has a disdain for America that’s a more caustic than hopeful, and that’s bad. But I think the regular left, yes even their leaders, tend to be more aspirational to American principles than Vance gives credit for. It’s also wrong what he says about them on the first place: I’m not aware of many even on the far left who advocate to kick people out of America if they don’t share the principles? At worst they display schadenfreude or want to put you into eternal lecture-detention.
And does a disdain for America, where it exists, also directly translate to weaker social bonds, his original concern? No, there’s no real link, really he just thinks the number of immigrants is too high and too ‘other’. It’s also a bad argument because he’s saying that too many immigrants worsens anti-nationalist pride… but at the same time alleging that the leftists deliberately want to import people based on agreement with American ideas or principles? Pick a lane, man. Weirdly he suddenly makes a U-turn and now describes this American creed as a progressive leftist thing, despite literally just talking about it as a good, general, national pride thing. Again, pick a lane man.
I think your read of this attitude as anti-meritocratic is accurate. He’s underestimating, ironically, America’s own extremely strong assimilation forces. He’s not considering immigration as a potential strength. I don’t really see too much of a statement on individualism. My main critique is that this vision is confused and intellectually incoherent. Ironically, he is great and even accurate about identifying some big problems with the left, but not so great at building something in its place (the same accusation levied at far leftists w/r/t America)
More broadly however I think the distinction between individual advice and public policy choices is the biggest issue of our age and most of the left-right divide generally. Right wingers preach personal responsibility which is good, but on a public policy level this means they ignore real suffering and policy can be weak. Left wingers preach social responsibility which is good, but on a personal level this means they fall into a cult of victimhood and their happiness and effectiveness goes down. Good policy and good individualism both require a degree of what to many feels like cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy, even though it isn’t. So they often default to one or the other exclusively and engage in tribal debates, trying to hammer home their strong points while being blind to the weaknesses.
I think the rhetorical device is called a "reductio ad absurdum."
More options
Context Copy link
A bit slippery and perhaps deliberate on Vance's part, I'd read at they want to deny right of representation to people that don't share their principles. They won't send Vance (for example) or people like him to a prison in El Salvador, but they would do everything in their power to deny that he's a "true American" and prevent him from ever having a position of influence.
I want to say citation needed but I don't know what evidence I'd accept here. I do think that's a pretty fair correlation but other things occurred over the last few decades that also affected social bonds.
Historically speaking, with a 70 year pause and a few wars between big waves.
His wife is an immigrant and he explicitly says the country is better with her in it.
Right wing complaints of voter suppression? Realistically this just looks like scolding. Not the scariest of threats even if annoying.
He frames social bonds as something that happens naturally with time within locales. The argument that social bonds are weaker because new people showed up seems weak and weird. Why I say he’s trying to have it both ways and it doesn’t appear to be a coherent worldview, not as presented.
I mean theoretically there’s a tipping point when it comes to immigration, where the new drowns out the old, or even “pollutes” it like Trump once said (gross language if you ask me). Maybe the point is subjective for many voters. At least when I lived in Miami a decade back, assimilation seemed to be doing just fine. Tons of kids refusing to speak Spanish even at home, for example. Historically I think we’re on the highish side but within norms (a backlash isn’t too surprising either at this point in time).
However we don’t really see this show up in the rhetoric is my point I suppose. It was my understanding that Republicans wanted any legal immigrants to be super woohoo about America, so it feels weird to see Vance say effectively the opposite. Unless I am misreading him here. The fact that the administration has done worse than nothing to make legal immigration work better, putting it off until later, also makes me feel like the pro-immigration stuff is lip service, and the speech more a stump speech to a smarter audience rather than a real attempt to lay out a coherent view of what America needs or should be.
Maybe not direct voter suppression - at least I don't have a definite proof of it yet - but we have multiple and very well verified instances of speech suppression, economic suppression, access suppression etc. And this happened both on governmental level and on the level of various non-governmental gatekeepers, such as academia, media industry, entertainment industry, big corporations, etc. - every level that defines how the society is managed has multiple examples of people being suppressed for being on the Right.
How it's weird? Who am I likely to bond with - the person I (and my ancestors) lived next to for three generations, or with somebody who showed up around yesterday, doesn't speak my language, has totally different culture and beliefs, wears something I can't even name, and can't answer positively to any of my "remember when" questions? I'm not saying the latter is impossible, but claiming it's less likely than the former - if anything is ever "weird" is claiming something like that, and without any justification, just dropping it like it's the most obvious thing in the world. Of course it's not.
I mean you’re citing the maximalist case, that I don’t deny happens occasionally, but sure. What I mean is that obviously bonds are relative. Bonds with whom? Is the bond of a neighbor with their longtime neighbor diminished because they have a third new neighbor? Not really (that’s how I initially parsed it). If we’re talking some kind of ambient social identity or affiliation, that’s more culture than sociality.
And I think there’s an excellent argument to be made that mere locality is a weaker bond than it used to be, with the decline of community institutions and our new media age, independent of who exactly is moving in. Plus, although I totally get where you’re coming from about ‘oh we might have less to chat about’ I think that’s not necessarily the case. If both newcomer and old timer have an interest and/or motivation to connect, it will still happen! Maybe you chat about football and they chat about soccer, to mutual interest, your Christmas invite is responded to with an Eid invite, etc. No need to be rosy here - maybe statistically there are fewer connections overall. Is that enough to matter? ‘Avoid the Polish kid Grzegorz with a weird name’ is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy just like ‘Don’t even hang out at a food place that isn’t halal’ is too, attitude matters on both sides of the coin.
No, but if I have N neighbors, then if those neighbors are all from "common ancestry" set, the number of bonds I'm likely to form would be larger than if they would be in "alien ancestry" set. Thus, the expected number of bonds, statistically, would decrease for the same N neighbors, if ancestry heterogeneity would increase. Note that it's not the same case as adding one neighbor to existing set of N - that's not likely to decrease the number of bonds. But replacing one set of N with another set of N would. Note that this is of course very theoretical and generic statement. But my point is it's not weird and novel thing, it's very much expected and natural to conclude that. It might be that after careful empirical study it turns out the common sense does not work in this particular area - non-intuitive empirical results happened in the past - but until it happened, it's not "weird" at all to think that.
Yes, it is, but that's a different dimension, which is orthogonal to the one we're discussing there. And yes, if there's a will there's a way - I am not saying this is some kind of universal impossibility and individuals are not bound by statistics, they can do whatever the heck they want. But on the societal level, statistics will assert itself.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He says, "And I happen to think that it’s absurd, and the modern left seems dedicated to doing this, to saying, you don’t belong in America unless you agree with progressive liberalism in 2025."
My understanding is that people who agree with progressive liberalism are not people who are "Woohoo" about America. One of Progressive Liberalism's main points is that America was conceived with the original sin of racism and needs to be born again.
It is my understanding that Conservatives would prefer that every immigrant be the kind who loves America, 4th of July, the Federalist Papers, George Washington, Apple Pie, Hamburgers, and basically be a Weeaboo but for America. Basically support the prior civil religion. Immigrants who support the current civil religion are disfavored which seems to be exactly what JD Vance is saying here.
I should have been more clear, yeah. But the thought remains, because as I mentioned the normal left (which even Vance distinguishes from the far left) are still mostly fans of the civil religion stuff. Other parts of the left aren’t as loudly America Sucks and in fact disagree. So I think he’s exaggerating the trend.
To attempt being more specific, if we use the Pew Political Typology groups, as of 2021 the “Progressive Left” is 12% of Dem and Lean Dem people, and though there isn’t an exact question on patriotism, there is this perhaps-proxy: “there are other countries better than the US”. It might interest you to know that there’s a huge chasm between them and the rest of the main Dem alliance. They respond 75% yes. “Outsider Left” (16%) also land at 63%. Here’s the catch, every other group, Left or Right, is at under 25% on this same question including Establishment Liberals and Democratic Mainstays.
If we’re talking immigration, as of then the “Democratic Mainstays” (28% of coalition) were notable doubters on a few measures. It depends heavily how you slice the adjacent questions though, for example “America’s openness to people from around the world is essential to who we are as a nation” has a sharp divide (70 and up vs 30 and below) but the Stressed Sideliners join an actual defection from the Ambivalent Right on the upper end.
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
As the highly official representative for "this place", I conclusively answer your questions with
Here's a suggestion: If you want to know what people here think on individualism and meritocracy, then just plain open a discussion about individualism and/or meritocracy. If instead you try to play semantic games with highly controversial public figures in order to attempt getting a blanket statement describing the ideological degeneracy of "most posters" here...I dunno, seems crooked.
But I don't care much about American politics, so I'm probably not the target demographic.
In summary, I just wished you had started a more open-ended discussion instead of laying out bait, no matter how openly you did that.
Part of the problem with just opening a discussion on "individualism and meritocracy" is that these are very fuzzy and connotationally charged words. It's therefore best to talk about specific examples as much as possible---this was just a relevant one that's somewhat timely. Any specific example is going to have a billion imperfections and distractions, but I really think it's still better to be concrete. If your quibble is that I picked a bad example, maybe you have a better one in mind?
I also think there's an huge difference between saying "most posters here are ideologically degenerate" in some absolute sense and saying "I have the impression that most posters here have values that are incompatible with my own for these reasons, am I right or wrong about this?".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
While formulations similar to yours are often endorsed, theyre not usually understood to work in the absolute way that you use them. For example, imprisoning anyone with a job for reasons unrelated to that job violates your meritocracy, but its generally thought that society has a compelling interest in imprisoning people anyway. Birthright citizenship violates your individualism. In fact, Im not sure there is anything short of granting citizenship to everyone whatsoever, that complies with both individualism and international law against creating stateless people. The absence of a 100% inheritance tax might violate both, depending on whether you consider bestowing inheritance a "judgement", or investment a "position of influence". Clearly, committing to this kind of absolute interpretation puts you into an extreme fringe position. This is especially strange combined with your claimed instrumental justification for these principles - those are usually quite open to compromise.
Now, maybe youll bite those bullets because thats just the true liberalism, but that really changes the conversation. I also dont think throwing your lot in with the wokes is the obvious response there. By those exalted standards, theyre barely different. You would be deciding based on ultra-low probability scenarios where your ideas gain any noticeable influence, and its hard to say where those are better.
More options
Context Copy link
The problem with meritocracy is that it has Implications.
The best fit for the best able, sure. But what if you aren't? There's also no clue about what's best. If you apply evolutionary logic to society, then who knows what will end up surviving and what won't? As someone else noted, it's easy to talk about meritocracy when you win, and it's very attractive. But what if you lose?
I would think that most meritocratic societies need to have some method of dealing with the people who lose. "You're a loser in a meritocratic system and you lost because other people are better than you in this system" is not a popular message. q.e.d. the woke: why not burn the system down instead?
As an alternative we can have a system with losers but instead of the winners being chosen by merit we can use an alternative criteria like knowing the correct people or being born to the right parents.
More options
Context Copy link
Would you rather be 95th percentile in Lesotho, or 40th percentile in America?
Revealed preference suggests that most people would rather "lose" in a wealthy country full of highly-skilled people than "win" in a third-world country run by incompetent people.
I think it would actually be quite competitive. 95th percentile in Lesotho would put you into literal top 100,000 people in that small nation. We are talking about a country with Gini coefficient of 0.44, being part of top elite would mean being very rich even in nominal terms - probably scion of some well connected family a respected local businessman or government official who studied in South African university (5,6% people have university degree in Lesotho) and goes there for shopping trips. Not to even talk about things like social status or what you can afford - things like your own maids and servants, housing etc.
UBS estimated that in 2022, 96.6% of Lesotho's population had a net worth of less than $10k.
https://rev01ution.red/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/global-wealth-databook-2023-ubs.pdf
In 2017, 89% of Lesotho's population lived on less than $10/day:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-living-with-less-than-10-int--per-day?tab=chart&country=LSO
Edit: Also, top n is less informative than top x%. The poorest person in Tuvalu is in the top 10,000 richest adults in the country. Top 100k in Ethiopia (pop 132 million)? Sure, probably richer than the average American. But Lesotho's economy just isn't productive enough or large enough to support 100k genuinely wealthy people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Revealed preference here is related to switching costs, not to which someone would prefer in a vacuum.
Let's say you currently live in Botswana. You could move to Lesotho, where you'd be 95th percentile, or to America, where you'd be 40th percentile. I think most people in that situation would still choose America, even though there's no substantial difference in switching cost between the two options.
From what I've observed, revealed preference seems to be "make money in America, then retire somewhere much, much cheaper."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Immigration preferences partially demonstrate that it's more than switching costs in most cases.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Every system has losers, and the winners have to be able to do something about them. Meritocracy has an advantage in this in that the losers, by definition, suck.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hello fellow lurker. I used to be a leftist. Then the left changed. Now I consider myself a classical liberal.
I happen to agree with what you claim is the "Motte consensus", but I think most modern social justice "liberals" would agree, too.
Note that here the social justice position is the anti-meritocratic one.
People who believe they gained their position through meritocracy are less likely to be charitable to the less fortunate: Prompting people to attribute their success to skill or hard work lowers their willingness to share windfalls or support public goods.. As I read it, less likely to believe in a noblesse oblige. This is, to me, a classic symptom of American dysfunction: instead of thinking a la Henry Ford about the impacts of their greed on the less fortunate, the modern upper-class is happy to raise the rent on the rest of us until we can't pay anymore. (This is enabled by their ability to financialize, lobby, and snuff out actual market competition.)
I would submit that the modern left in academia also dislikes meritocracy, but because it sets up a heirarchy. Example 1, Example 2
On Individualism. The individualism/collectivist dichotomy is something that every society needs in moderation. Too much collectivism, and you get stuck in your current rut. Too much individualism, and you cannot solve collective action problems. Too much collectivism expresses itself as groupthink, stifling social pressure, following tyrants, and people voting for the "popular" candidate in elections. Too much individualism and you have a bunch of selfish psychopaths who are impossible to govern. To put this another way, collectivist meritocracy is why every Korean kid is pushed to go to the same colleges, but rampant individualism is why Russians and Americans cannot exit burning planes quickly, but Japanese can.
Anti-individualism. I would assert that both the left and the right in the US are currently anti-individualist. The social justice left is collectivist in that it sees people as representatives of their demographics and in that it will brook no dissent. The moderate left is collectivist in that it believes that children should go to public schools for their education. The moderate right is collectivist in that it embraces orthodox religious and moral norms, and the radical right shuns leftist-adjacent behaviors and has its own shibboleths.
But individualism is all highly relative. Any American plopped into Japan would struggle to maintain Japanese social norms, whether that individual be from the left or the right. There is a certain socialization and mindset that is inculcated in early schooling in more collectivist societies, and Americans don't get that in their kindergartens and elementary schools.
More options
Context Copy link
I disagree with your definition of Individualism, the word is usually meant to describe something more like "every man for himself." I do agree with the statement that "every man should be judged for his own capabilities and qualities." I also agree on the Meritocracy front - we should have the best people in the toughest jobs getting the biggest compensation.
I suspect JD Vance would agree with these two statements as well.
Where I disagree with you is the idea that this would apply to membership in a nation. It's really odd to me that you see the two as connected so I will try to make analogies and you tell me where you think things are dissimilar.
Membership in a family is not based on meritocracy. There aren't game shows where kids compete against each other to have the best parents. There aren't quarterly reviews of a child's grammar school progress lest it turns out a child is not good enough for their current last name and have to move down the road to join the Johnson's.
For most people, membership in their family is based on happy accidents of their parent's geographical proximity and how well they got along.
People can join a family without without genetics, too. There's adoption of young kids. There's adoption of older kids. There are people who declare themselves brothers as adults because they enjoy similar interests and look out for each other. There is marriage.
Within a family there is a hierarchy and meritocracy to an extent. Parents are usually the most competent members of the family and are rewarded with the majority of decision-making. But being a member of a family is not a measure of merit. For most people it's something that just happens to them and even if they are disabled and need extra help they usually don't run the risk of getting disowned.
A nation is like a family in this way. Membership in a nation is generally an accident of geography and family tree. There are ways of getting adopted in, but this requires agreeing to conform into the nation's culture/mindset and should be a very limited, personal, and slow process. A child can't just crawl in through your window and declare they are your child now. Adopting a child is deliberate, adopting a new citizen is also deliberate.
Within a nation, there should be merit. The best people should be governing, doctoring, etc. But I strongly disagree with any conception of American citizenship that perceives it as a reward.
It's utterly ridiculous if you take it to the logical conclusion. Every year, let's send our bottom 20th percentile to Mexico and let in their top 20th percentile! No, there just isn't a hierarchy among nations like that.
American citizenship is not a prize, is not fungible, is not tradable. American citizenship is an identity. American citizens are the group of people who elect American leaders who in turn make decisions to prioritize the well-being of American citizens over everyone else. There are smart Americans, stupid Americans, lazy Americans, hard working Americans. Our leaders represent us all. Or at least, they should.
More options
Context Copy link
It's not a great sign that it's been 8 hours and you haven't been arguing with any of the responses.
Of course there are vanishingly few self made men, everyone gets almost everything from their family, nation, ancestors, etc. That's proper, right, and necessary.
I don't believe very strongly in meritocracy. Reports of the striver rat race to get into the best colleges, of South Korean grind culture, and of elite overproduction suggest failure points. I would be alright with a world where people mostly followed their parents' professions (assuming they're competent enough for the position -- the child of a brain surgeon might be a more generalist doctor, or if they don't want to do the work, some other PMC for, for instance), aside from the obvious issues with underclass kids with no profession to look to (sure, intermittent work in a warehouse or fast food restaurant is not a good life plan), and technological obsolescence. Trying to get everyone to go to college because blue collar is just so terrible was a bad idea. America should focus more on making things like working in all aspects of chicken farming/processing less terrible, not on importing desperate Guatemalans who will work until their fingernails rot off.
Individualism is fine to the extent that it's possible to interact with people as individuals. If there were some wise judge who was actually wise reviewing all potential immigrants as individuals, and they really had the best interests of the nation in mind, over multiple generations, then sure, fine. But that's not going to happen, just like the communism of a monastery isn't going to scale to a whole country, or even city. States often can't operate at that level (cue Nikolai Rostov "they're actually trying to kill me! Me, whom everybody loves!")
Anyway, yes of course most Americans are citizens because their parents were. Just like everywhere else. There's no frontier that could absorb large numbers of stateless people who failed to earn their citizenship. I guess if the Starship Troopers plan were on the table, where people had to earn the right to vote through national service (but still retained the right to live and work through birth), that would be fine. I dislike the custom of anchor babies, but doubt that anything much will change in that respect.
Rat races are only an issue when being at the bottom is so horrible that people are desperate to avoid it. In this case, any way you set up society is going to be horrible---what's the alternative to the rat race? Most people are just screwed because of the circumstances of their brith and can never have a reasonable life no matter what they do? If we actually do as you say and make chicken farming less miserable, then the rat race would also weaken.
I think this is a little bit of a distraction though since you aren't supposed to try to justify meritocracy by fairness. Someone has to be the surgeon hypothetically operating on me and I would much rather they were chosen by meritocracy---it's not about the person who gets the position but an instrumental goal to make things best for everyone else. Like many more things than people realize, surgery is really hard and it does actually matter to have the 0.1th percentile performer instead of just the 10th percentile one. Being "competent enough" is beyond humanly possible---medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the US according to this.
Finally, while the Korean educational rat-race has gone way over into Goodhart territory, a little bit of rat race is great for motivation and helping everyone become the best version of themselves. I am very happy for the extra motivation this gave me to study for math contests since that made me a much better technical problem solver. I am even more happy for the extra motivation it gave me to do the much less fun writing practice for English class.
Meritocracy is probably useful at very high, best in the world levels. Like I said, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with an actually wise judge, who would look at a surgeon, or researcher, or entrepreneur -- how competent they are, who they're planning to bring with them, how excited they are to become American, etc, and let some number of competent, excited potential Americans over. On balance, I'd rather have Musk as an American than not. Or even Ramaswamy, despite having mixed feelings about some of the things he stands for. If there are 100 Von Neumanns out there somewhere, sure, let them in. If some of them are Chinese, let them in but watch them. If they start complaining about whiteness, or prom queens, or high school football, let them go back. Not that I even care for those specific things, but those are pretty bad red flags.
At the same time, no, I do not want Ramaswamy or Musk to be able to each import ten thousand compliant, desperate engineers from India. Even if they are marginally better than the locals (though I mostly doubt they are). They should have to work with Americans. If they're trying to do things Americans don't want to work on, for wages Americans are not willing to accept, while they should change their plans. I'm not so desperate for a Grok powered humanoid robot army in ten rather than thirty years.
While it's useful to have meritocracy at the top, I'm less convinced of its usefulness at the middle and bottom levels, especially with automation proceeding apace. I would prefer to live in a world where I work fewer hours, then bake, sew, and pick fruit with my kids. I already do that to some extent, and there's a lot of angst about how all the straightforward housewife tasks have been outsourced, and that it's not entirely a good thing. Like the communist Xitter about wanting to lead discussion groups and make clothes out of scraps. Things like sewing undergarments and picking strawberries are fine in moderation, and terrible as a full time job. Keeping a flock of chickens is fun, people will do it at cost. There are a decent number of tasks like that. American boys won't pull weeds for nine hours in the sun for $10/hr, while others might -- but the people who have accumulated nine hours of weeds are doing it wrong.
This has been debated before---look up the o-ring model of economic development. One of the conclusions you can draw from this is that it does matter to have a very deep pool of talent to draw from. Again, people have a general bias towards underestimating just how hard most jobs are, especially jobs with technical content to them.
Even beyond that, the measured outcome of letting the side that's seemingly ancestry-over-all-else have power is to not even have meritocracy at the top: Terry Tao also appears to be getting his grants cut (though this is recent news so take it with a large grain of salt. EDIT: confirmation).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ahem. I would think my precise gender identity is irrelevant, but just about everyone knows who I am here.
Going back in time to create your own cloning and quick aging vats is deeply respectable commitment to your transhuman philosophy, and, if you’re looking for literary criticism, a bit of a ripoff from Warhammer 40K.
Look man, turning out to have been my own mom and dad because I mixed up the time-travel and gender reversal devices is hard enough, I don't need the accusations of plagiarism. Just consider your own username, are you looking for a complaint to the RSPCA?
I’ll light a candle and pray for you to overcome your traumatic time-travel travails.
I’ve chipped in my 10 quid at enough popup RSPCA booths on British Town High Street that I think I’ve bought an indulgence or two. The sad dog posters always get me.
My primary concern is the ghost of Hector haunting me for my presumptuousness.
More options
Context Copy link
Then don't plagiarize Heinlein. Sheesh.
With time travel, Heinlein may well have been the plagiarist.
Now you're ripping off
Jack LewisTodd Thromberry.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
There are some jobs so terrible that they can only be done by the desperate or by forced labor. There's fewer of them than there used to be, but picking strawberries is still a job that really sucks, and there's no improvement on the horizon. There can be people doing certain jobs because the carceral system forces them to work full time and they can't get a better job, or there can be people doing it because they're desperate third worlders.
I've heard that mentioned a lot, as a reason it's so, so important to have slaves. It just seems incredibly weak. Coal, sure. It was super important. But... think of the strawberries??
Sure, this is a stupid example- and we can do without them(or with them being prohibitively expensive). But there's numerous jobs(many in construction) in which every single person who does it long term is permanently on probation because they are legally required to have jobs and can't find other ones. Lots of much-harder-to-do-without agricultural jobs, too.
There's something biblical about the idea that the men who build homes (and other buildings) are the same men society has determined aren't quite worthy of being a full part of society.
More options
Context Copy link
I suppose I have less of an issue with citizens who have done bad things having to get shit jobs, since they're their home country's problem to deal with either way.
Still, I'm confident that our economic system is robust, and we'd figure something out if we had to. Would our houses be slightly worse? I don't know, since you didn't say what the jobs are, specifically. If it's roofers working in Phoenix when it's 120 out or something, maybe it would be more expensive and certain styles of roof would become less feasible, hard to say, it would be worth trying. Almost everyone used to work in agriculture and repair their own houses, I'm sure the current arrangement of turning everything into an assembly line isn't the only possible one.
More options
Context Copy link
The argument from @Gaashk stands, I think. We didn’t need slaves in the northern states since the founding, in the west since the early 19th, and the south since the mid-19th. Suddenly in the late 20th we discover slavery to be a necessary institution for agricultural work that was heretofore done even by so cushy an ethnicity as the English. Construction, same deal. What has changed? Does nobody sense something wrong in the fact that the Land of the Free is suddenly regressing so far as to demand a permanent underclass? This is why I don’t trust any of the economic statements on this matter. The whole argument has no sense of history to it.
There were far more desperate people in nineteenth and early twentieth century America.
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
It's very late in the time zone I'm currently in and I probably won't be replying to anything in detail until tomorrow. I don't have time to write long posts every hour of every day---like waiting 24hrs is the standard for written communication.
More options
Context Copy link
The post was filtered pending mod approval. I believe it's been more like 2 to 3 hours.
Oh, I see. Looking at Netstack's post I guess it's only been 4 hours; maybe he'll come back.
I was getting pretty tired of the AlexanderTurok inspired you people posts, with minimal drive by engagement.
If the first post was filtered, it's likely the responses have been filtered as well. An annoying artifact from rDrama. Try to upvote them even if you disagree with their post until they break free.
No one but a mod should have been able to see it or reply to it before it was unfiltered.
I know that it's hard, but this imo really needs to be changed. It's bad enough for progressives to be regularly downvoted (even if I may disagree as well) but probably unavoidable, but longtime posters constantly getting filtered without mod action has to be supremely frustrating and I probably would also leave eventually.
The moderators are allowed to run the site however they want---they managed to make something providing significant value that's hard to find anywhere else. It's only frustrating when they continuously claim that the site is something that it isn't.
Advertising a place like this as purely a place
is basically a sneaky way to wage the culture war by sanewashing a lot of very sketchy racist arguments through giving them a very tilted playing field and a sort of "controlled opposition" (for this and many other reasons).
But no. Unsupported assertions are easy to make. This one is false.
"Sanewashing"? A thought defeating cliche used against statements for which someone lacks an argument against.
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
Ok so the motte has anti-individualistic and anti-meritocratic views, to the extent you would prefer the woke to have power. But the woke are notoriously and unambiguously anti-individualistic and anti-meritocratic. One would think that if those were your reasons you would prefer the motte, no?
J.D. Vance does not actually say that. If your quoted paragraph was the entirety of his words on the matter then I think that your reading would be a fair one. However in literally the next paragraph, w/ emphasis mine:
Vance goes on to list what he thinks citizenship means. They are: Sovereignty, Building, Obligations to Fellow Americans / Gratitude. Noticeably absent is ancestry.
When Vance explicitly addresses what he thinks citizenship means and you ignore it in favor of an implicit reading it comes across as dishonest.
More options
Context Copy link
Vance did not make a statement "that citizenship in the US should be based on ancestry instead of individual choices and beliefs". He said that choices and beliefs were neither necessary nor sufficient. He implies ancestry is sufficient, but not that it is necessary.
More options
Context Copy link
You are not stuck in traffic, you are traffic. I am responding with a modhat but this is not a warning and will not be noted on your account, even though your past posting history weighs against you on this.
The reason this is not a warning is because you are plausibly making an effort to understand something, which is good.
The reason I am responding with a modhat is because we have a growing problem with posts like this, namely, posts that begin with the framing that "the Motte" can be helpfully or usefully addressed collectively in connection with particular ideological commitments. I believe this is mistaken as a matter of substance, but even if it weren't, it would be a violation of the rules:
The paradigmatic consensus-building post is "I'm sure you'd all agree..." Lately I have seen too many people approach that from a position of disagreement instead--as here:
You've couched this in sufficiently perspective-taking language that it's not an egregious violation of the rules, but it is nevertheless not the way to approach questions like this. You could (and should) have written your entire post as a clear question without reference to a monolithic Motte: "what do you [whoever is reading] think about these ideas, or this claim?" You don't need to accuse your readers in advance of being wrong about something; if you have a question about what people believe, ask them, don't tell them. If there's a specific ideological position you want to address, address the position, not the people you imagine to be holding it.
"This place" is a website
That's all. You may see some people in other parts of the Internet characterize this as a site catering to some particular ideology, but those people are wrong, often maliciously so, and they tend to spread misconceptions about the community that are harmful to the community. I can't do anything about that in other spaces, but I do what I can to try to stop it from happening here.
(And that is actually kind of an answer to your question, if "the Motte" is what you are interested in understanding: the foundation generally manifests as individualistic and meritocratic, because individuals (not groups) post here and individuals (not groups) get upvotes or downvotes, AAQCs or warnings or bans. But individuals here have many different views on meritocracy and individualism, I'm sure, and honestly I'd be surprised if even 60% of participants here held the beliefs you have, entirely without evidence, attributed to the entire group.)
Heavily endorse this. It's frustrating to have positions put into my mouth that I do not hold. I think many people feel a knee jerk need to defend positions attributed to them and that only reinforces the implied consensus.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you put any value at all into individualism and meritocracy, then there are very few groups you should rank as less deserving of power than "the woke." Even if you find The Motte undeserving, you're still betraying those values.
Strongly disagreed, they are almost entirely counter-efforts to what many people would consider "fairness" for the last 30-50 years.
It's disagreeing about what the creed of America is. The people who fought in the Revolution and the Civil War (charitably, one could think the North; being a Borderer, Vance undoubtedly had ancestors on both sides) stand for one set of creedal ideas of America.
Progressive liberalism, to the extent one can call it liberalism without choking on their words, rejects everything that came before and represents another- IMO murky, and to the extent defined at all completely unworkable for a multicultural society- set of creedal ideas.
5-10% anti-meritocratic at most. Liberalism isn't a suicide pact, don't have a mind so open your brain falls out, yada yada. Rephrased, "we want useful, competent people- so long as they don't hate Civilization."
Right, so the comparison to the woke needs more justification (I'm sorry for the repetitiveness I've made this point before to you in the past, but I think there's some new aspects).
Most people I talk to in person who would describe themselves as woke seem to actually agree with me on at least the thing I called "individualism". Their belief is rather that the world is so far from achieving this that we have to do extremely drastic things in response. When they make mistakes, their mistakes are factual---that their extreme remedy is going to make the situation better than the status quo. These mistakes are not that hard to correct---no getting rid of standardized tests won't help because every other measure is even more skewed towards the rich, etc. In everyday life, I've found it very easy to argue/convince very woke people on most concrete policy issues relating to "individualism".
"Meritocracy" is harder, seemingly because the very woke that I know don't see its need---we already have enough, why do we need growth, why does it matter that jobs are done well, etc. However, in cases like medicine where you can argue that we don't already have enough you can argue in the same way. The "we already have enough" is also not so hard to argue against by just having them look up global GDP/capita and speculate on what sort of lifestyle that allows in comparison to what they're used to.
Conversely, a hypothetical group that actually accepts the ancestry-is-paramount interpretation of JD Vance's statement just disagrees on these values completely. There's no resolution to be had here.
Anyways, this is all theory. Since January, we can see how the comparison worked out in practice. I think even the worst 2020 wokeness was better for getting skilled people into positions in the US than the attacks on skilled immigrants from the Trump administration---the stories like this that keep coming out every few weeks and the chilling effect they create.
I think the past decade or so of history has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that these mistakes are, in fact, insanely hard to correct.
My hypothesis is that this is due in large part to the fact that people don't just make unbiased, truth-oriented judgments on what is true and false, but rather use judgments based on what one is motivated to be true. Ironically, the "wokes" should be more aware of this phenomenon than the average person, because so much of the "woke" worldview is based around invisible/unavoidable biases that people have due to the conditioning they received from society. It's somewhat confusing why they don't use this insight to introspect - figure out what oppressive societal forces pushed themselves into their own ideology that posits a narrative about "patriarchy" and "white supremacy" as hegemonic forces shaping our society. Figure out what personal psychological blind spots and failings are causing them to find this narrative of oppression so attractive and convincing. At the same time, it's not at all confusing why they don't do this. People chase their bliss.
When the so-called factual mistakes are driven by ideology, then correcting them seems at least as hard as correcting simple disagreements in ideology. In part because the people making these factual mistakes mistakenly think that their mistakes are factual in nature, rather than ideological, and so they lack the knowledge to actually correct their mistake, dooming them to keep making the same mistake. Well, dooming others to being subject to them making the same mistake, perhaps.
More options
Context Copy link
Indeed, irreconcilable differences of opinion here. The FAA scandal, nominating a Supreme Court justice who can't even say what a woman is, choosing a VP on similar grounds who failed hard at everything she tried, and countless other attempts to put identity over skill or even mere humanity, like highly-credentialed psychotic freaks that suggested teachers deserved to die for "health equity"? Lipsitch and Schmidt should be scourged and sent to the salt mines.
The worst of 2020 wokeness was violent psychopathy and promotion of the unskilled, unwilling, and in some cases just plain evil. While I do not approve of much that Trump has done, he has not done and I predict will not do even 1/10 the damage.
Whatever you think got skilled people into useful positions, it was due to whatever liberal remnant that hadn't completely rotted its brain out with wokeness.
These individual cases are quite bad, though I suspect there's a major attention component to your noticing. I continue to think they are nothing in comparison to the vast racism propagated by wokeness against whites and Asians, and Jews on alternating weeks.
I'm sorry, do you have any real-world experience with the impacts of this administration's policies or are you just judging this based on what you hear from the internet. Because if you did have actual real-world contact, making a judgement that the damage is solely at the level of the FAA scandal and some awkward interviews and media quotes is completely absurd.
Do you have any idea how many grad students are deciding to only apply to postdocs outside of the US? How many people from outside who would've a year ago loved to come here deciding not to apply to any schools in the US? How many people are leaving research because of 60-70% funding cuts to hard sciences and the subsequent hiring freezes? The rumors in my field are that young people shouldn't even try applying to Canada because all the openings are going to be taken by senior researchers leaving the US. From anecdotes on the ground, literally hearing what people are saying at conferences, the destruction of the scientific research infrastructure in the US is unmatched by any event in a western country since Nazi Germany.
Yes, I don't give a damn about whatever stupid ultimately superficial nonsense you can pin on the woke if the other choice is this! Seriously, most of you're examples are quotes and words, it's obnoxious how much you're ignoring actual material impacts.
EDIT: and as you can see from the responses below, it seems that some prominent posters here seem to think that this is a good thing? Do you understand now why I would pick the woke?
Consider this a general reply to the quoted comment as well as to https://www.themotte.org/post/2277/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/352758?context=8#context .
Look, I'm not trying to convince you to not "pick the woke", or that I or anyone on my side as it were should "have power". I don't meant to tell you what to support or oppose. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, really. I don't think you made a mistake in your thinking, or that you should support a different side. I think you need to acknowledge that there's a good deal of conflict theory playing out. And I think arguing that the goings-on are good or bad in the framework of mistake theory misses the more tangible points of why and how this happened and why and how it will happen again.
Co-opting institutions in the name of ideology taints them.
If I turn the military into a bastion of reactionary thought, then I shouldn't be surprised that a century of leftist agitation works to erode the military even if that means that modern European nations have to piss their pants when Putin knocks over some border towns in Ukraine (though, granted, much of that panic be performative), or that we flail helplessly as pauper pirates in the Red Sea take our shipping hostage. We're materially worse off for it, and now untold billions of Euros will be wasted on incompetent rearmament programs to pretend to remedy the problem, but what good is any complaining? Socialists and communists and their green and woke successor ideologists have dismantled the military not because it wouldn't have been useful to them, but because the military was inseparably linked to reactionary ideologies.
The church - really any Christian church, all of them, doesn't matter which - has undergone the same process, though over a longer period of time. I'll skip the blow-by-blow, let's just say that in between the middle ages where the church wasn't just a major power-broker but also an absolutely essential insitution in almost matters social and cultural, at all levels of society, in all stages of life, it now mostly isn't. And it's left a giant God-and-Church-and-Community-shaped hole in western people's lives. Why did we do that to ourselves? Why didn't we take it slow and wait for a superior alternative to be developed? Why didn't we just root out the pedophiles and the nazi sympathizers and the intolerable profiteers like the prelate of Limburg and then go back to our congregations? Because again, it wasn't about troubleshooting or optimizing a socially useful institution, but about destroying an ideological enemy. Whether you were an enlightenment firebrand, a libertine who didn't want his hedonism criticized, a revolutionary who wanted to design his own institutions, a socialist who saw it as a tool of the burgeosie, or a late 20th century progressive who really needed to show off how much better he was than the primitives of yesteryear - they all had their various tactical reasons for destryoing the standing of religion in society, even without providing a better alternative. And they were right to, because the church wasn't just there to provide spiritual care and moral support, it absolutely was in their way and unwilling to give up what authority it had over peole's lives.
Or think about the immense economic damage caused by various green ideological warfare. For every sensible ban on a poisonous but replaceable substance, and for every much-appreciated restriction on the pollution of the commons, there's at least one other ideologically motivated but completely superfluous and highly harmful obstruction to economic activities. Pouring massive public funding into electric cars, for example. But it will save the climate, you might say. Then how about scrapping Germany's safe and productive nuclear power plants on what was little more than a whim?
And let's not even get started with "The Pandemic" or "The Refugees".
And by all means, maybe I'm just not aware of the full scope of the goings-on in America right now, but I doubt that what President Trump is doing to public university funding is anywhere near on that level.
In any event, my point is just this: I encourage you to consider these events in terms of conflict theory, because conflict is what is happening. Neither side is trying to do what's best for society; both are vying for influence, standing, authority and power, and whatever socially useful institution gets ground up on the way is just collateral damage. And neither side can, at present, afford to play nice. I leave it open to you whether you want to see the two sides as a left-vs-right, woke-vs-antiwoke or trump-vs-antitrump. But it's a conflict. In game-theory/prisoner-dilemma terms, both sides are in the business of defecting, and whichever side opts to cooperate instead loses. It would be terribly nice if both sides cooperated, but that's not what's happening, and asking only one side to cooperate while the other defects amounts to asking them to lose gracefully.
Destroying the commons for ideological gain is not new or unique to one side in the culture wars, and both will do it when it ends up being strategically feasible.
@FCfromSSC used to have a pithy phrase about this. Something about maximizing inconvenience for the outgroup?
Thanks!
Hm. It may not be as applicable to my topic as I thought. "Without getting in too much trouble" doesn't seem very accurate at the current stage.
Edit: No, I'm wrong. It remains accurate. It's not like POTUS Trump is getting into any trouble he wouldn't have been in anyways.
I'd say it's entirely applicable. "without getting in too much trouble" is one of the two main throttling mechanisms on the tribal hatred engine, and is tightly linked to the other one, the fact that the search is "distributed". The search being distributed reduces how much trouble individuals get in, and reduces the efficiency of the search because it's conducted in a less-conscious fashion. It's the part people miss when they niavely predict the outbreak of civil war over the atrocity du jour.
Here's a gradient:
"X are bad" > "X shouldn't be tolerated" > "It's pretty cool when an X gets set on fire" > "you should set an X on fire" > "I'm going to set an X on fire" > actually going out and setting an X on fire.
You can graph the gradient in terms of actual harm inflicted on the outgroup, by the danger of getting in trouble, or by the amount of trouble you'll get in. There's a sweet spot on the graph where you find the greatest harm inflicted for the least cost incurred. The Culture War consists of people, with various degrees of consciousness, searching both for that sweet spot and for changes to social conditions that make the sweet spot larger and sweeter. Increasing consciousness of the nature of the search increases search efficiency greatly. Being unaware of the mechanics of getting in trouble likewise increases the efficiency of the search, since even if you get in trouble, you still provide valuable data to the rest of the search nodes. Various coordinated actions, changes in social norms or in formal policies likewise increase the efficiency of the search by asymmetrically reducing the threat of trouble being gotten into. Affirmative consent policies, DOGE, "who will kill Elon" and "are those level-4 plates?" are all variations on a theme.
Blue hostility toward the Church and Red hostility toward Academia are the same thing: coordinated meanness against an enemy tribal stronghold, moderated by the need to not individually get in too much trouble. The tribes successfully purge each other from their institutions, and then are shocked when the other side no longer values the institutions they've been purged from and begins reducing them with metaphorical bombardment.
...And for those who've read this far, this is your reminder that this process is not your friend. Our capacity to maintain flowing electricity and running water rely on the sweet spot staying quite small and the search being quite limited and stable over time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Whether good or bad, it's a thing that had to happen. You can bemoan it or regret it or celebrate it or stand puzzled by it, and still I'd ask you to answer this question: What would you have asked the enemies of the woke to do? Leave academia alone, no matter the degree to which it has been weaponized against them? Come to their senses and realize they're on the wrong side? What else?
There's a general argument pattern that goes like this: "here's a problem, look how bad it is, we need to do something!" and then "this is something! I'm doing this to solve the problem, how can you oppose what I'm doing? Do you think the problem is actually good?" Finding a problem in the world does not give you a blank check to do whatever you want as long as you can write some words arguing its related to solving the problem.
So the answer here is they should do nothing until they find an action that's actually effective and doesn't have much worse side effects than the actual problem. This is same thing anyone trying to fix any other problem in the world should do.
You are giving the impression that the culture war is so important to you that it's worth burning the world to make sure your side wins. There are other things in the world that are important besides the culture war and once you start destroying those other things as part of some sloppily-targeted crusade, it's a pretty reasonable conclusion to say that you shouldn't have power.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm quite skeptical about an exodus of American academics. I'll believe it when I see it. My prediction is a tiny portion actually leaves.
More options
Context Copy link
Thousands of extra murders? Billions in property destruction? The renewal of abject racism being acceptable as long as it has the right targets? Tiers of justice based on identity? Explicit discrimination in hiring and education?
What have been the benefits of wokeness if you consider these costs acceptable?
I don't consider these costs acceptable; as always, I consider them the least bad option. The alternative seems to be to not have scientific research happen in the US to anywhere near the same efficacy and scale as right now, thereby destroying the biggest engine of human progress and flourishing existing in the current world all because of some people's irrational focus on people's ancestry over all else.
It's also telling that your two most concrete costs aren't really that large on the scale of a country. Billions in property destruction is the same order-of-magnitude as badly-written liability laws letting oil drillers think they can get away with too-lax safety standard and causing some medium-sized spills, and one or two orders of magnitude less than a large-city government not taking disaster scenarios seriously and building good flood protection before a major hurricane. Thousands of extra murders is the same order-of-magnitude as making the wrong decision for whether to intervene in some standard once-per-year foreign conflict or the effect over a decade of not regulating lead well enough in one large state. These are not the order-of-magnitude that deserves such a national policy freak-out and not even close to the percents of GDP growth you lose from the kneecapping of the country's research infrastructure and skilled-immigration pipeline (and really, it is this big when a single skilled-immigrant's company is somewhere between 5-10% of the entire SAP500).
The other two are so fuzzy. How bad they are is so hidden in all these imprecise words like "acceptable", "tiers of justice", "explicit discrimination" that can be interpreted as anywhere from a nothingburger to one of the worst things that's happened in the last decades. Again, please try to be more concrete---it's impossible to reason accurately about this otherwise. I personally think you have such a skewed view of the relative impacts because you have never tried to be concrete about this before and are instead getting distracted by the exciting, culture-warry nature of the fuzzy words you can say instead.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm just a bystander of course, and affected only in so far as both woke culture warring and American scientific achievements spill over the atlantic, but as a right-wing culture warrior, my impression is one of "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.". By politicizing academia and turning into one of the if not the main engine for leftist propagation and legitimacy, no matter who started or drove it, it became a legitimate target in the culture wars. One can lament it from either perspective, but letting the left have it uncontested would have been strategically insane. And if it can't be converted to rightism or dragged into neutrality, then destruction seems like the natural next-best option.
If you keep your cruise missiles or drone factories in a hospital, then complaints about it getting bombed ring somewhat hollow. Yeah the material impacts are a shame, but what did you expect? I'm not surprised about how leftist media have picked apart the church and the military and other former bastions of rightism, and you shouldn't be surprised about how rightists are doing the same to leftist-dominated institutions.
If you want something to be exempt from fighting, to not become a battlefield, to be beneficial to mankind, to be valued and cherished by all, then for God's sake don't let it become the centrepiece of anyone's war machine unless you are that certain of its invulnerability.
Here's a better analogy: there are two conflicting gangs D and R that sometimes go over and graffiti/smash windows in each other's territory. There's a hospital in gang D's territory that pays its protection money. Once, one of of gang D's members runs and hides in the hospital after smashing a window (with the support of the hospital director and staff---though it's unclear how much of this is actual sympathy to gang D). Gang R dramatically escalates the conflict and blows up the hospital in response.
In addition, many of the hospital employees wear glasses and there's a vocal contingent of gang R that keeps talking about how much they hate people who wear glasses. Once the hospital is blown up, the responses from gang R are basically "ha, good! down with people who wear glasses" and "that'll teach those D-sympathizers".
I think I'm correct in judging gang R as by far the more evil side here. Either, they massively escalated the fight and targeted pretty uninvolved parties just doing good or they let their irrational hatred of glasses overwhelm much more important values in their decision making. If I had to choose between gang D and gang R to rule, the choice is obvious (we don't have the option of no gang).
Even more, gang D might be saying "see, we warned about R and their hatred of glasses, you told us that it was 'just a few fringe voices' and even treated their chief chemist for food poisoning. Look what they do when they have the chance", and it seems that maybe they actually have a point.
My bad for starting with the analogies, but I'm not going to have us ride them into the sunset.
Let's get back to reality. Leftism dominates in academia and media and leftist ideologies effectively utilize them as central organs for spreading their way of thinking, for recruitment, for drowning out opposing opinions and for legitimizing their own. Do you disagree with this?
No I don't disagree, that's within the realm of plausibility as far as I know so I won't argue against it very confidently.
There are two reasons why I'll say "so what?" to this however. First, the charge you're making is just about speech and recruitment. Having opinions you disagree with is not a reason to destroy something---rather you should focus on the people acting on those opinions. This is why I really think it's important to focus on concrete material impacts, like the example of researchers fleeing the US and the subsequent significant hit to research output and therefore general economic productivity in the US. In the long run, scientific and technological development is and has always been the single most important thing for making people's lives better, so hindering it is a really big deal.
The second issue is treating academia as a monolith---you might as well say that the San Francisco Bay Area is dominated by Leftism, etc. etc. so when the next big earthquake hit we shouldn't disburse federal disaster aid. Sure, there might be specific parts of academia that are organs of the far Left, and these parts may be the most loud and visible. However, the vast majority of it is not. The current US administration's response seems particularly insane since it's targeted at exactly these parts that aren't. This really pushes me to the conspiracy theory of "well, that's the part that has the most people with glasses so of course that's the part they'll target" from the analogy---that the damage is exactly motivated by ancestry-over-meritocracy and not any good-faith attempt to fix the problems with academia.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think a screenshot of this comment without context would do very well as a LibsOfTikTok-style righty meme. Can you guess why?
I assume some kind of "yes, good" thing? Otherwise, do you care to explain? I know that there exist people with incompatible values to me, so what---I mean someone was complaining that my post was condemning the average poster here as ideologically degenerate. I wasn't doing that, but if you're saying that this is the response I'll get then maybe I should have been?
I'm replying to someone who I thought cared about scientific progress and meritocracy (as defined in the OP) more than any kind of ancestral/racial purity however. Now that I think about it more, I guess this might be a better concrete example to focus on than JD Vance's quote. What are you willing to sacrifice to keep foreigners out of the country?
The angle is "These people are cutting my job - theyre just like the Nazis".
For posterity, grandparent said:
in response to this.
Yes, I can see how people with low reading comprehension might interpret it that way. We know otherwise however---much of the value provided by this place is that I don't have to write for people with low reading comprehension. I am not in fact optimizing for how it comes off to libsoftiktok readers and I don't think I should be?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can you speak plainly for the benefit of those few who genuinely don't know what kind of meme you describe there?
As I said, literally just the screenshot, in a context where its understood that youre supposed to "look at this lefty".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A nitpick, perhaps, but I really don't think that's a fair description. Refusing to step on a trap isn't incompetence.
That's not to say Jackson handled it well. Maybe there was some response that turned it around, suggesting the question was ill-formed? But that's something I'd frame as a failing of charisma more than intelligence.
The only way to win was not to play. Given that the question would surely come up in cases shortly after her nomination, too, it was an unfortunate fumble.
Also seconding Arjin that a simple question becoming a trap is a symptom of a much larger problem. It might be a loaded question but it's hardly "yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?" The culture that loaded that question by hollowing out language created its own issue.
I didn't say it was a failing of intelligence either; the implication is that it was a failing of skill defined generally. Charisma is a good suggestion for a narrower term; I'd also accept wisdom or to be playful, dexterity.
I think KBJ is quite smart, less of an institutionalist than ideal but I liked the KBJ/Gorsuch pair-ups from last term.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, except that explanation has much bigger implications about the state of meritocracy among the progressives. Not knowing what a woman is would be an individual failing, putting enough people with weird ideas in positions of influence like academia, so that giving a straightforward answer to such a basic question becomes a trap, is a collective failing of massive proportions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I wouldn't worry so much about the Kim case. Didn't we JUST have a case where some Trump admin atrocity turned out to not be what it seemed? Or rather, not to have happened at all?
It turns out people will just make stuff up.
It is possible, as the stories have been speculating, that Kim was refused entry to the US and detained because of his past drug offense. If so, this is not new with the Trump Administration. Here's a 2015 document from the Immigration Legal Resource Center noting that such an offense makes a person inadmissable but not deportable. If he actually completed pre-adjudication probation (resulting in no conviction), he should be admissible, but it's not clear that happened..
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This then raises the question of why these mistakes are so pervasive. This is somewhat understandable for the average, random wokie, but why is it also true for the intelligentsia of this movement, who are presumably paid to know how to bring about individualism?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Offering a data point of myself:
I would reject it, though I'm not sure I represent the typical Mottezan's viewpoint. Then again, I question whether the typical Mottezan is even a meaningful category.
Yes.
Word games, but "meritocracy" and "individualism" are just pointers to confused concepts that are themselves products of a long series of word games.
More options
Context Copy link
Is that what he said? From the same speech:
I actually think he's saying the exact opposite of what you claim: the ADL (they wouldn't be my first example, but whatever) are the one's who brand people unAmerican if they don't comport to the ADL's definition of who an American is. Based on the bolded sentence, it seems like he wants to hold everyone to the same standard, not give preferential treatment.
I think you're hyper-focused on this sentence
but charitably, one thing that Vance may mean is that branding others as unAmerican for the beliefs they hold is itself unAmerican. And yes, I think he also means that people with deep ancestral roots in this country – people whose ancestors died fighting for this country – have a special right to call themselves American. That's...reasonable. It's a standard used by people in literally every country in the world. It's natural to feel a connection to a nation if you can trace your ancestry back hundreds of years. Vance is implicitly signaling to the audience that they shouldn't be ashamed of these feelings, but he's also saying immigrants are welcome to the American project if they "feel a sense of gratitude" towards the country. I get that's too far for the left, but I don't think it's unreasonable, and I think a great many immigrants share Vance's sentiment.
Look, I'm more on your side here. I'm a bit nervous about some of the ideas of the Online Right, Dissident Right, whatever you want to call them. But Trump and Vance are not the Dissident Right; not even close, at least not in any meaningful way. Vance's wife and children are Indian. That matters. I believe Vance sees his wife and children as American as he sees himself and therefore he has no intention of pursuing policies that disenfranchise or otherwise hurt non-white (that is what you're hinting at, despite never using the word "white") American citizens.
More options
Context Copy link
Citizenship is in fact based on ancestry and/or birth location. That is true across the globe. Most countries additionally lack birthright citizenship and require an ancestral justification for citizenship. Vance is stating the most common legal norm regarding this. So I would not portray it as a particularly Vancian/Mottish view.
As a separate matter there are immigrants who apply for citizenship. I suppose some ideological test is valid for them. Not being former SS officers or terrorists or anti-capitalist revolutionaries, etc. But not an ideological test checking for 2025 progressive values. There's no "trans lives matter" loyalty statements in the paperwork or interviews.
Broadly speaking: Vance is correct in this quote.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't really think this is the correct way to look at this question. If you are selecting for proficiency at being an American you are overwhelmingly going to be choosing Americans. Being good at e.g. surgery doesn't really tell you if someone will be good at being an American.
I think this is true even if you're holding to a creedal understanding of Americanness (e.g. a random American is MUCH more likely to register vehement and enthusiastic agreement with widespread firearms ownership or an expansive definition of free speech than someone from almost anywhere else on Earth.)
More options
Context Copy link
I think most attempts to characterize “this place” are misguided. General agreement with a principle isn’t enough to make that principle representative, especially where political coalitions are involved.
I also think that, compared to the vast majority of people who want to generalize about “this place,” you’ve put more effort into doing so politely and constructively. It’s a good post. The least I can do is answer for myself.
On the first point of argument: that’s not what I would call “individualism,” which normally refers to the weighting of individual interests as opposed to collective ones. What you’re describing is like the opposite of “collective punishment.” Perhaps “personal responsibility.”
Your use of “meritocracy” is more agreeable, though I don’t know how many people would limit “personal virtue” to avoiding self-interest.
With that out of the way,
If Group R gets privileged based only on the deeds of their ancestors, then that’s corrosive to meritocracy, to personal responsibility, and to individualism.
If the two groups start out with equal claims, but Group D has thrown theirs away by rejecting the American ethos, then it flips. Now meritocracy demands we prefer Group R, since at least it isn’t trying to wreck the project. We’re supposed to hold Group D responsible for their individual actions.
Guess which of these is closer to the modal Republican worldview?
Vance’s
dogwhistlemotte and bailey is consistent and defensible to his intended audience. It’s actively hostile to anybody who doesn’t already agree. I don’t think he cares.If Vance wanted to talk about the second case where the groups start with equal claims, he could've said something like (I'm trying to make this rhetorically charged in the same way) "church-going, law-abiding patriots have a hell of a lot more claim over America than ungrateful socialists who say they hate our country". Specifically focusing on "people whose ancestors fought in the Civil War" really makes it that Group R being privileged just based on their ancestry is a strong part of his statement.
Maybe this is too much psychoanalysis, or maybe I'm falling for some rhetorical game where Vance is baiting responses by purposefully saying something in a more controversial way then he needs to (I mean, focusing on the Civil war without specifying which side instead of the Revolutionary war definitely seems to be something like this), but my gut feel is that going out of the way to bring up such a specific thing as ancestry means that this is actually what he was trying to say.
So I honestly don't know anymore what's close to the modal Republican worldview (or more relevantly, what vision the current Republican party pushes for during the current and future times it has power). Figuring this out was the main reason for the post since I really think this forum gives a good sense of the intellectual arguments that eventually work their way down to driving Republican goals.
Yes, you are massively overreading a verbal quote and adding information to it in order to make a larger point beyond its actual scope. I don't think Vance was cleverly baiting you. I think he was giving an innocuous speech.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
FYI the post you're replying to is Filtered.
Fixed. Thanks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link