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 -
That seems like conflict theory done only halfway.
I'd say all weapons will be used by all sides that are capable of using them, with no respect for unilateral non-escalation. Progressives will shame conservatives regardless of conservatives refraining from attempting the same, because progressives are currently in a position to quote that piece of the Melian Dialogue: "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.".
Observing the proprieties while your enemies are biting and gouging is only a winning move if there is some powerful third party who values non-escalation.
You seem to be making the mistake that what's important is to win or lose. But as the cliche goes, what matters is how you play the game. I would much rather lose while upholding good moral behavior, than win by sacrificing morals.
It seems like a noble sentiment on the surface, but it does not seem that great when you are hiding in the bushes while the enemies behead your brothers and rape your sisters and aunts. This high-minded morality to me is just a sign of privilege, it is easy to pretend to be "moral" if one is not present with tough choices
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, I too prefer to play that way. But you can only lose for so long until you're not even in the game anymore.
Now I don't mean to imply that anyone, conservative or otherwise, necessarily needs to go around shaming people. But I do mean that progressives seem to have no compunctions about it and they're currently winning the culture war so decisively that they increasingly get to dictate the conditions for social participation, and for conservatives to worry about whether shaming might be used against them if they were to attempt to employ it against progressives is, in my opinion, missing several points.
More options
Context Copy link
What good moral behaviour is being maintained by avoiding the use of shaming tactics? I would be surprised if there were many people who were against the use of shaming absolutely, in all contexts.
More options
Context Copy link
"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"
Have a blessed day.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nietzsche asked:
If your morals lead you to be devoured by the monster, for no benefit to anyone except monsters, then what good are those morals?
To quote a long-eared muppet. "That is why you fail".
This is why leftism always devolves into purity-spirals and circular firing squads, this is why utopians are incapable of building anything other than mountains of skulls. The first step to building any lasting legacy is to care about something (usually a principle, but possibly an institution or other person) more than you care about yourself.
-Thomas B. Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
And yet the those same leftists control nearly every institution with influence or power in the US today. That's not what failure looks like.
More options
Context Copy link
Seems like you want principles but also some pragmatism.
Utopians often have principles but it is in those non flexible principles that leads them to creating hell on earth.
I don't believe this is the case. More pointedly I don't think that the modal Utopian has any real principals other than "Achieve Utopia", and that is why they have a tendency not just to tolerate but embrace "evil" in the name of achieving their "greater good". After all, it becomes trivially easy to justify GULAGs, Guillotines, and Gas Chambers when your only limiting principal is "first we have to win".
What I mean by pragmatism is perhaps better worded as tolerance. I know not everyone is going to agree with me or my principles. I should be happy getting 85-90% of the way. Trying to get that final 10-15% is where he’ll is often created.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's funny you mention that quote, I just watched Oblivion yesterday with Tom Cruise and it was a plot point of the film. What are the chances. It's funny how two people can read the same writing and both think it supports their perspectives even though they are opposed.
But I don't think that quote lends support to the "be quietly devoured" side of Nietzsche's dilemma. Do you really think you are facing fearful odds for the ashes of your fathers with a milquetoast non-resistance to an opposition that is tearing down the temples of your gods? You really think "Democrats are the real racists" is you standing against fearful odds when it's the safest (non-)opposition that progressives allow you to have? You will be able to live peacefully with that opposition, that's true, because "Democrats are the real racists" is ultimately paying homage to their gods. You are still adopting their moral compass.
Horatius describing "Standing against fearful odds" obviously honors the bold and the brave opposition- in the context of ancestor worship for that matter, and not the personal salvation of one's own soul. The ancient Romans made mountains of skulls in honor of the ashes of their fathers and the temples of their gods. And so did any great civilization.
Caring more about the salvation of one's own soul than fighting and winning against a monstrous opposition would be total lunacy to Horatius.
I also object to the implication I am a utopian. I am certainly not. I believe in the deep, inherent conflict of the political and don't believe there's one neat trick that solves it and saves everyone's soul. That's why I care about winning, and think it's a vice for people who should know better, but they stay within the walled garden of their feckless opposition while they make the conscious decision to gracefully lose.
It's not brave at all and it's certainly not the posture that Horatius is honoring in this writing.
What do you know of "resistance"? What makes you think mine is "milquetoast"?
I'm not the one here who's ensconced themselves in a progressive bubble only to go anonymously bitch about it on the internet while still parroting their leftist sociology professor's talking points. Nor am I the one trying to delude themselves into thinking that Kolmogorov Complicity is somehow not complicity.
I know what I am and where I stand, and that is in defense of the old ways against the nihilistic post-modernism that seems to have eaten academia and much of the mainstream media from within.
No, I think it is a statement of a simple historical fact. But we are also at a point where statements of historical fact can be a form of resistance. The opening to the US Declaration of Independance does not read "after careful examination of the available sociological data and best academic arguments we have concluded..." it reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." what you've never seemed to grasp throughout our interactions is that I don't just reject the woke democratic narrative, I reject the whole psuedo-Marxist framework upon which it is built. That is why I hold both the woke left and the alt right in contempt and why my first impulse in any conflict between the two is to root for casualties. Identity Politics Delenda Est.
As for Brave Horatius, I think that he and Franz Jagerstatter would find common ground in the belief that it is better to be killed by the enemy, and die with your chin up, than to compromise with sin.
Quaker-style? Do you believe it is better to be conquered than for your soldiers to kill enemy soldiers?
Define "conquered", because I feel that that might actually be one of the fundamental disconnects here.
First, in the literal, Ukrainian sense. Second, in the cultural, Uyghur sense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't have nothing to add other that I loved the passion of your comment: it's making me introspect on how I want to live my life.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For my good. It's better to be a good person, even at great material costs, than to engage in vice to get ahead.
This is too glib. What is Vice in this context? Is it a vice to commit an evil that you believe is necessary to achieve a just outcome? It wouldn't be a vice to lie to the Nazis about the jews in your attic, right? Is it a vice to maintain a MAD nuclear deterrent? Is it a vice to use the enemy's own tools to defeat them - even if you would abhor them in any other case?
More options
Context Copy link
I can see that from a Christian perspective, with a belief in an eternal reward for choosing non-resistant martyrdom against enemies that wish you harm.
But in ancient Roman the virtues included Virtus, Auctoritas, Dignitas... "Gracefully losing" while your community falls apart would be seen as a vice from this perspective.
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