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 -
Alaskan monarchist? Yeah, I'm thinking based
So are you an Anglophile? How did you come about to becoming a monarchist?
Not especially, particularly given the state of the British Monarchy since, well, the "Glorious Revolution," really. (I'd argue, in particular, that the whole point of bringing in Georg Ludwig of Hanover, thanks to the Act of Settlement, was to prevent there from being a real monarch — note how Walpole emerged then.)
Lots of various things. My entire time in public education was an endless fight with administrators, which left we with a deep and abiding hatred of bureaucracy. Later, reading Max Weber had me understanding that bureaucracy is a product of Weberian rationalization, which is itself a core component of modernity and the "Enlightenment." A couple incidents in junior high disillusioned me as to America's pretensions to equality and classlessness, as well as the entire idea of "rule of law."
I went to college in Southern California, where I met real Blue Tribers (who weren't just rich teenagers poorly aping their parents politics), and realized that they weren't a bunch of naïve-but-well-intentioned over-optimistic utopians a la Sowell's Conflict of Visions and Pinker's Blank Slate, but a different tribe, one very, very hostile to my own.
I was raised with the lower-class "redneck" American suspicion of government. (Yes, I know this sounds paradoxical; just bear with me.) With Reagan's bit about the nine most terrifying words. With an understanding that Barney Frank's "government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together" is utter nonsense. Government is not "us." Government is them. Government is the IRS, the EPA, the ATF.
I was given a version of "the talk," about being as polite and deferential to the cops as possible, because every one of them is a Michael Tritter, a petty tyrant who will readily abuse his powers to utterly destroy your life should he feel even the slightest hint of you failing to respect his authoritah. That when seconds count, the police are minutes (or in rural Alaska, hours) away. And yet, at the same time, "back the blue," as it were, because they're still a necessary evil, preferable to the criminal scum they suppress. (Cue the crude metaphor from "Team America.")
Government is the Sheriff of Nottingham, robbing you of much of your harvest for some asshole living up in a castle, because he was born to the right family, and occasionally grabbing your sons to go get killed fighting some other asshole in some other castle — and that's what it will always be. Our illusions that it is otherwise in "our democracy", that it could ever be otherwise, are just that: illusions.
And yes, I read Yarvin back in his Moldbug days. But it was not so much his arguments (I have plenty to say about his proposed solutions to our problems; and how his so-called "monarchy" of a CEO appointed by a shadowy cabal of anonymous "shareholders" to maximize the metaphorical gold extracted from the peasantry, with cryptographic locks on their troops' weapons, and so on, is unworthy of the term), as those of the various prior thinkers he referenced, from Carlyle to Hoppe. (I'm glad I went down the "libertarian to monarchist pipeline" — not that I was ever a libertarian, really — given that at least two other people I went to grade school with (and who were rather libertarian in high school) went down the "libertarian to fascist pipeline" instead, and are now pretty much 1488/GTKRWN types.)
TL;DR: my 40+ years on this earth have taught me that democracy is a sham, the American experiment has failed, liberalism is based on a false anthropology, the entire "Enlightenment" project (which is falsely given credit for science and technology that it does not deserve) was a terrible mistake, and that if we are to have the slightest hope of ever expanding beyond this small, fragile (doomed) rock, we're going to have to radically overhaul Western civilization in ways that involve looking heavily at the pre-Enlightenment world. (Along with, I think, some elements of Confucianism, particularly Xunzi's variety of it.)
Thank you so much for the write up. Very interesting read.
Unfortunately for you, now I want more! I'm going to look into Xunzi. But I'd love to hear more about what your proposed model is.
I've got several unfinished essays looking like they're about to turn into chapters of a book/manifesto laying out my views. With titles like "Society is Not a Van der Waals Gas" (on liberalism having faulty anthropology), "You are not Avalokiteśvara" (on concentric loyalties and telescopic philanthropy), and "Evolution is Not a Creation Myth" (on how most people who "believe in evolution" don't even understand it, treat it as something that doesn't apply to modern humans, have "Creationist-adjacent" views on central planning and "high modernism," and implicitly accept the Creationist position that telos inherently implies a conscious, telic "purpose-giver").
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link