site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31225 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023

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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://benthams.substack.com/p/hordes-of-vultures-descend-on-bostrom

Bentham’s Bulldog discusses a recent apology letter from Nick Bostrom for saying the n-word as well as saying that blacks have lower average intelligence in an offensive way in the mid-nineties. Bostrom also says in the apology letter that he’s not really a supporter of eugenics as some claim. Despite apologizing, Bostrom is attacked still for reiterating he believes in IQ gaps and “handwaving” about eugenics.

I used to look at the declining number of Christians in the U.S. to conclude that people were becoming more rational.

Now I realize that religiosity has just transferred -- slavery was the Original Sin, racism is the Devil, and we are all guilty unless we Repent (become anti-racist) and Jesus (black people) alone can forgive us.

It's so tiring.

From "I Am A New Atheist, And I Repent":

One of my core beliefs was that humanity is better off without religion. Religion introduces error and dogma unnecessarily. It appropriates human’s need for community and diverts it for its own ends. It hijacks emotional drives to steer people into atrocities. In summary, it always siphons off value to preserve itself, provides nothing of value in the best case scenario, and in most cases actively degrades humanity.

One of the reasons I thought this is because I truely and deeply believed my generation’s Big Lie. That lie being that All People Are (Roughly) The Same. “All Men Are Created Equal” taken to the extreme. There were many simple, obvious facts of reality that I discovered in my 30s that genuinely shocked me, because I had so fully believed this Lie. It would be like a Christian expecting Jesus to take the wheel of their car when they let go, and being honestly, deeply shocked when the car crashes. I still think this Lie is Noble, and there is some value to it… but ultimately, like all lies, it is destructive. I plan to write more about this Lie and my relationship to it in a future post.

This is important, because *I* didn’t need religion. To me, it provided nothing of value. I understood morality and why other people matter. I found it important to understand the most accurate model of reality possible, unfettered by convenient falsehoods (haha, see previous paragraph). I was self-motivated, socially isolated, and highly Open/Novelty-seeking. Religion was simply a thing that was wrong, and that often served as a handicap.

Since Everyone Is (Roughly) The Same, this must be the case universally. Anyone who thought that religion was net-positive in any case was a victim of religious brainwashing. They’d been deluded, lied to, or violently suppressed, into clinging to humanity’s most destructive parasite. It was my duty to help them break free.

I was so, so very wrong.

It turns out people are different. Shockingly different, in some cases. There are large segments of the population that need what religion provides. Their psychology is vastly different from my own, and they cannot live without the sort of totalitarian guidance that religions provide.

I would not have believed this if someone told it to me, no matter how much supporting evidence they threw at me. Even six or seven years ago I wouldn’t have believed them. I would have to see people freed from religion, drown for years, and then finally create a new religion from whole cloth to supplant the old one, to believe this. I would have to see it with my own eyes, happening in real time.

That is exactly what happened.

Over the past few years I watched a new religion born. A secular religion, which doesn’t have the dead-easy failure mode of requiring belief in a sky-fairy. But, since it was created in America, with strong Christian roots, it has all the trappings of Christianity.

Original sin

Essentialism

Repentance and confession

Manichean good/evil dichotomy

Focus on martyrdom and victimhood

Salvation dispensed by the church and needing constant reaffirmation

Even worse, since it is a new religion that is being seized as a lifeline by people who’ve been spiritually drowning for over a decade, it is full of fiery zealots. All conflicts are recast as spiritual struggles focused around the original sin. Like the puritans, they can harbor no dissent in their midst. Everyone must be equally zealous and on their side, or they are on the side of evil. Any price is worth paying to save a soul from evil.

When the scales fell from my eyes and I finally realized what had happened, I felt true crushing failure. Not because I had failed in my objective. Tradition religion is less relevant than ever. The New Atheists won. But in winning, having not realized how different others are, we left a massive religion-vacuum in society. We laid the groundwork for a new religion. One that had been purged of the greatest weaknesses of traditional religions, and with a dense underbrush of religion-starved kindling to tear into.

No, it hasn’t. A list of parallels doesn’t make something a religion.

They aren’t even good examples! Racism isn’t an entity. Anti-racism lacks various key features of Christian repentance, such as securing an afterlife. Black people are not serving as a proxy for Christ the Redeemer and His voluntary self-sacrifice.

The buck basically stops at “both these groups have some idea of blame and atonement,” which is not exactly unique. Capitalism has debt; that doesn’t make it religious. Game theory’s tit-for-tat strategy doesn’t pigeonhole researchers as zealots.

I'd rephrase it as religion occupies the same or very similar roles as ideology. Religion is an ideology with a supernatural skin. That is why behaviors are the same for zealots whether it's Christianity, Communism or whatever. Ideology came first (as in an idea of how people should behave) a religion is just a sub variant.

Sure.

I'd outright agree with something like @hydroacetylene or @VoxelVexillologist says here. There are obviously some SJWs who, in another era, would have been Christian/Muslim/HareKrishna/etc. evangelists. It's plausible that this is a causal relationship, and that the diminution of Christianity has either left a God-shaped hole or atrophied their natural skepticism. What's more, the movement enables, even endorses, dogmatic thinking and purity spirals that chafe against the bounds of Western liberalism.

These are interesting parallels to other pre-Enlightenment traditions. Is this because of a "near-inescapable part of the human condition?" Or perhaps because zealotry is memetically fit, and any movement which makes it to global prominence must have either mastered or accepted it? I think those are valid questions. I'd honestly be really interested in a sober comparison on the subject, one that tries to predict how social justice will react or evolve by analogy to religious movements.

That...is not what the OP provided. He was more interested in plopping social justice into a category with unpleasant associations. This is the worst argument in the world.

It doesn't have to be a 1:1 match with Christianity to be a religion.

Religion tends to imply far-reaching moral claims and ways of living organized around mystical / supernatural ideas. Anti-racism/progressivism may be distinctly christian, and may make significant moral claims, but it isn't a religion - it doesn't have supernatural claims, nor does it provide a grounding for all or even most moral claims.

It's claimed to be a religion because of the combination of moral dedication and seeming wrongness - as if people follow it religiously because of a 'religious impulse' to believe strong moral claims at the expense of correctness. This doesn't work because wokeness makes specific, non-mystical claims - calling it a religion doesn't actually rebut the claims (it'd come closer if woke people believed in an Anti-Racism Allfather that lived in the sun, but it doesn't!).

Religion tends to imply far-reaching moral claims

Progressivism has those.

and ways of living organized around mystical / supernatural ideas.

Modify this to "unfalsifiable ideas", and Progressivism has those.

It's claimed to be a religion because of the combination of moral dedication and seeming wrongness - as if people follow it religiously because of a 'religious impulse' to believe strong moral claims at the expense of correctness.

No, it's claimed to be a religion because people have faith in it.

This doesn't work because wokeness makes specific, non-mystical claims - calling it a religion doesn't actually rebut the claims (it'd come closer if woke people believed in an Anti-Racism Allfather that lived in the sun, but it doesn't!).

I'd say the claims are plenty "mystical". They don't need to be supernatural to be unfalsifiable, supra-rational, and they are definately used as the basis for moral reasoning that is not otherwise justified.

No, it's claimed to be a religion because people have faith in it.

That isn't what makes a religion. Me having faith Man Utd will not be good for X years after Sir Alex doesn't make a football team a religion.

A religion is I think, a sub variant of an ideology, one with a supernatural element. A communist zealot and a Christian zealot will exhibit similar enforcing behaviors because both are expousing ideologies on how they think people should behave. Whether that is because they think that people should do X because God gave the 10 Commandments or because Marx said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" doesn't impact their enforcing behavior really.

But only one is a religion, otherwise the term is too broad to be meaningful. For example it's probably tricky to discredit Communism by claiming Marx never existed.

Which isn't a claim on which is better or more true because the value judgement as to whether Marx was right is subjective, but it's a different kind of subjective as to whether a supernatural being exists.

Now it is certainly possible Marxism could BE a religion, if he was said to possess some kind of supernatural insight or was the avatar of a God or other mystical entity and that is why his ideas should be listened to.

Why does the supernatural idea matter, and how does one define "supernatural"?

If I claim that god is the substrate the natural world is built on, does that make him not supernatural any more? One presumes not. But when Marxists claim that iron laws of history demand that human civilization move through exactly one path with no possible deviations, why is that meaningfully less supernatural than me claiming God as substrate?

Both I and the Marxist are making unfalsifiable claims that the physical world is determined by metaphysical, unobservable, unfalsifiable forces. Being unable to prove the existence of those forces, we nonetheless both precommit to treating them as axiomatic. In other words, we put our faith in them, and act accordingly. Your "faith" in Man Utd is not based on metaphysical claims that take precedence over the physical, and that is why it is a poor comparison here; also, you've seen Man Utd play, while I have never seen God and the Marxist has never seen the classless society.

But only one is a religion, otherwise the term is too broad to be meaningful. For example it's probably tricky to discredit Communism by claiming Marx never existed.

If I could prove to your satisfaction that the man named Jesus existed, I find it doubtful that you would promptly convert. Whether Jesus existed or not is hardly the issue, but rather whether what his metaphysical claims were true, no? And is it not exactly the same with Marx? The purported Jesus made specific claims about the supernatural: that it existed, and that as a result we should take specific actions and adopt specific values. Marx likewise made specific claims about the supernatural: that it did not exist, and that as a result we should take specific actions and adopt specific values.

Which isn't a claim on which is better or more true because the value judgement as to whether Marx was right is subjective, but it's a different kind of subjective as to whether a supernatural being exists.

I do not think there is a functional difference between asserting that a supernatural divinity exists, and asserting that history is bound by iron laws and can only proceed along one path.

What, specifically, is added to the analysis by separating positive spiritual claims into one category, and negative spiritual claims into the other category? What observed outcomes demand such a separation? The context of this conversation is about the label "religion" specifically used as a pejorative. Well and good, so what does this special label allow us to focus on that would otherwise pass unnoticed? Corrupting effects on reason? Additional zealotry? Violence or aggression? Why is the separate label useful?

The modern Atheist movement was based on the idea that religion was irrational, and often or even always harmful. Point me to an irrationality or a harm that any religion has ever caused or advocated, that materialist ideologies cannot match or surpass. You claim that labeling Marxism a religion makes the term too broad to be meaningful. Why, specifically? What is lost through such an application? What, specifically, does "Religion" by your definition do that ideology does not?

A non-religous ideology can absolutely be irrational. It can absolutely cause great harm. No question there.

If you could prove God exists then you have proved that Christianity is to a greater or lesser extent true. If you prove a classless society can exist, that doesn't impact whether it should.

If you could prove to me that Jesus existed and did the various miracles associated with him, then that fundamentally would change my view on reality in a major way. Proving communism works wouldn't. People can live in small communes, at small scales communism clearly can exist. If some AI assisted version of communism actually worked i'd be surprised but it wouldn't fundamentally change anything.

The difference is I think that God could in theory change the rules to say anything. The teachings and commandments are His, the judgments are His. It would still be Christianity if in a miracle every Bible tomorrow added an 11th commandment. Or changed all the others in the blink of an eye. You would (correctly I think!) probably see that as proof God existed. Perhaps that He was intervening to correct what man had written or whatever interpretation you might put on it.

If we change what Marx wrote to endorse free markets and the capital class then it is no longer communism at all. What the idea is (true or false) is what it is evaluated on.

Where the knowledge comes from is a critical part of religions, whereas if Marx was proven not to have existed and Bob Smith had written Das Kapital then nothing really changes, whether the ideas work or not would not change.

Would Christianity really be the same to you if it were proven God didn't exist? That it was just a set of rules for living written by men with no deific inspiration? Doesn't that change the fundamental idea of what Christianity even is? Or if it were revealed the Devil wrote the Bible to put evil into the heart of humans. Would you just shrug and say, but it works, so i will still go along with the commandments?

The source of knowledge or truth in Christianity is arguably the most important bit. Whether that source really exists is a major component of the faith. Christianity without God is just an ideology. Maybe it has good rules for living, but its no longer the same.

The source of knowledge in communism is nearly irrelevant. If we discovered Marx was a lie then communism is still just an ideology.

None of this necessarily changes how zealots behave just to be clear. As for why I draw the distinction, the argument made was that wokism was a religion, and I think that is incorrect and diminshes our understanding. Wokism like communism is built on materialism, and while enforcing behaviours will be the same either way (because those don't change whether you believe in God or racism), its fundamental conceptual building blocks and how it will mutate in the future are not the same as if its precepts were derived from a supernatural entity or not.

I'm not arguing it not being a religion makes it objectively better or worse in other words, just that it makes it different. It's likely to mutate and fragment much faster than Christianity did for example because it lacks an overarching "eye in the sky" and even that didn't entirely protect Christianity from fragmentation.

Wokism not being a religion won't necessarily impact how individuals behave, but does change how the movement overall will alter over time in my opinion.

and ways of living organized around mystical / supernatural ideas. ...Modify this to "unfalsifiable ideas", and Progressivism has those.

Yeah, and my point is 'unfalsifiable ideas' is a much broader concept than 'mystical and supernatural ideas'. A supernatural idea is 'God created the universe, piece by piece, and you go to hell if you don't believe in god'. One example of an unfalsifiable belief is: "everyone hates me. no matter how much they say they like me, they secretly hate me". another is "everyone is fundamentally good. no matter how many evil acts they commit, their nature is goodness".

No, it's claimed to be a religion because people have faith in it.

If "faith" means "believing in something that is false", or "believing in something that's not falsifiable" then sure. If faith means something like 'choosing to believe in something even though you acknowledge it can't ever be proven, because you recognize it's your duty to believe', then ... no, progressives would claim their beliefs are normal, observable, and true, and not 'held on faith'. And the sense in which faith relates to religion seems more the latter to me.

Progressivism is, like, a set of beliefs that some people believe in for social/tribal reasons. It also gives some people a sense of community and purpose. Religions also do that, and it's "like" a religion in that sense. But in that sense Apple as an employer is also a religion, as is heavy metal music, so eh.

another is "everyone is fundamentally good. no matter how many evil acts they commit, their nature is goodness".

This belief is not merely unfalsifiable; it is supernatural. It posits a good which exists outside observable reality. The same is true for progressive beliefs.

While there’s a minority of work types that think of black people as equivalent to Christ, it doesn’t seem like they’re a majority at all.

I totally buy that people getting less religious become more likely to believe in all sorts of other crazy shit, including dubious work narratives. But woke as Christianity does not seem accurate.

I totally buy that people getting less religious

I sometimes wonder if it's really "people think they are becoming less religious, but religion-esque dogma and all its vices are actually a near-inescapable part of the human condition." Not sure myself, but it's a plausible take.

This sounds a lot less profound if rephrased as "people believing wrong things, and acting on them, is an inescapable part of the human condition", in which case that's just true because of how complicated everything is, and as one attempts to apprehend more and more complicated phenomena one continues making mistakes. There isn't an inherent 'religiousness' to all forms of being wrong!

People are, by and large, shifting from traditional religious observances with known failure modes to low-demand spiritualism(like astrology) and non-spiritual affirmation(like therapy and allyship, etc), and the failure modes of these things are less known, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

I think that is exactly what we are seeing. The problem isn't and has never been religion, it's dogma and zealotry. Those things have been part of religion, yes, but really that's just because humans practice religions and it turns out those things are inescapable human nature.

When people say "wokeism is a religion" or other similar statements, it's not so much an assessment of theological similarity. It's an attempt to draw attention to the dogmatic and zealous nature of woke activism by comparing it to a human activity which is well known to have those same failure points.

What is this place?

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

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

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


Why are you called The Motte?

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

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


New post guidelines

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

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

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats