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 -
So there is a question that has been gnawing at me for the longest time: is PRC... Good? I mean:
I mean, there are obviously some tough things to get over (the whole free speech thing, how they handled COVID with safetyism that would make many in the West blush, all the other usual stuff), but genuinely, honestly... Following the news from China for a few years, I really can't help but envy the Chinese. Take down the communist iconography and I think that many on the right would see it similarly to Japan.
One of the cognitive biases that irritates me most in the Western thinking is «ideological similarity = moral good». Democracies are good if you're democratic, nationalisms are good if you're nationalist, Putin is good if you're Based, and the whole nonsense about the Judeo-Christian Tradition of course. It's probably an outgrowth of the Western European/Hajnal Line selection for participation in non-clannish moral communities – parishes, religions, nation states. Regardless of its historical adaptability in the parochial intra-European context, it's facile. Ideological similarity can help in alliance-building due to the shared conceptual language, but it can also create conflict if the ideology points you towards the same scarce resource rather than some mega-project. Different branches of Communism are mortal enemies because each wants to remake the world in their idiosyncratic manner, even as they are infinitely more similar to each other than to non-Communisms. And nationalisms are the primary example. The meta-level rule is just «my people first», for whatever definition of «people»; it's not even an ideology in the proper sense but an intellectual framework for advanced tribalism. What interests do a Han Chinese nationalist and a MAGA Heritage American have in common? They both want their people to have more resources and power to deny resources to the other tribe. Some rational win-win cooperation is possible, and common knowledge about incentives may help reaching the equilibrium, but ultimately it's a natural foundation for a zero-sum game. Ideally, you want others to cooperate unconditionally and be free to defect.
That said, I do think that the PRC is basically good. Or rather, they have a holistic notion of "good" that leads to a meaningfully healthier civilization, which is at once competitive and not very aggressive. Among all else, they have
Now, it's not like the Chinese people have an infallible internal compass pointing to goodness; what is and what isn't seen as «superior behavior» is contingent on the social consensus. But the consensus isn't totally deluded or hypocritical either, and crucially, it can be steered by the elite that has skin in the game and wants to stay elite for generations to come.
It's a rare, strong and valuable package. It also has a plethora of failures not shared with the Western civilization and/or others, which may (or may not) be intrinsic to their system and impossible to ameliorate without compromising the strong parts.
I view it as an experiment among other experiments. Thus far it has been impressive, but research continues. It'll probably be good for the Han Chinese in the long run. Whether it'll be good for the rest of us… well, they'll definitely solve change on their own, for one thing. Just no way around it at this point, they have made solar dirt cheap, they're making battery storage dirt cheap, they've bulldozed through the European degrowth bullshit by proving that you can have both economic growth and low carbon emissions. Their own emissions have been stagnant for like 2 years now despite ≈6% annual electricity consumption growth, exports to the developing world have high double digit CAGR, it's a self-reinforcing loop with no discernible limit. Anthropogenic climate change used to be a big deal politically, Westerners are still debating kooky conspiracy theories at the behest of the fossil lobby, but soon people will realize we won't need to bother anymore, renewables simply make more economic sense.
That's one thing. There are more things. You can solve many problems with an insanely productive large scale economy. Mainly they'll be solving their problems, though. They don't have any moral commitment to international charity.
P.S. I have to say, while some skepticism on China is warranted, takes like @Amadan's here are very blackpilling.
Just how uncurious do you have to be to remain so ignorant of the 2nd biggest nation on the planet that makes half of all your shit, that has been the only state to retaliate and fight you back just in the course of this year's tariff insanity, your supposed arch-nemesis, the oldest surviving continuous civilization etc. etc.? As far as I'm concerned, Han Chinese are the closest thing we have to an alien species (maximally distinct and consequential of all non-Western groups), and China is the main story of the world's development over the last two millenia, only briefly deposed by the European diaspora; it's crazy interesting, but it's relegated to the same basket as Russia (the last European empire, mainly distinguished by its backwardness and large near-Arctic possessions) and «Gulf States» (…come on now). I've been saying on this forum for years that Based Russia is an embarrassing LARP cooked up by the likes of Surkov, that we're fake and gay corrupt atheists with some talent for theatricality (shared by yours truly) and bog standard nationalist-authoritarian schticks. I love my people, there are some very cool things about us, but it's just not a big deal. How can you not notice that, say, they can routinely create a new industrial equipment plant in 1 year? Or that they're The Only Country that has drastically increased its share in high-quality research in many critical fields? That it's no longer just «catching up»? From the fresh NBER review:
And it's all like this. Russia? Saudi Arabia? Really? Where does one get the chutzpah to look down on this? How is this psychologically possible? Is this just because the US has barred imports of high-tier branded Chinese goods like EVs and Huawei phones, and the industrial stuff they do export and dominate in (from advanced chemistry batteries to John Deere parts) gets wrapped into American-branded shells, so the only thing you see is dolls, baby strollers and crappy cheap plastic and chinesium tools from ebay?
I feign the bafflement, to be clear. Theirs is a highly illegible and uncharismatic culture, their advertisement smells fake and gauche, all those drone shots of LED-lit skyscrapers and tiktok reels with high-pitched alien music. It's very easy to appreciate intellectually but it's not in-your-face amazing like the US or Europe or Japan used to be. Still, I am blackpilled with the lack of intellectual… hunger among the Western commentariat.
Westerners enormously overrate the value of their taste and gut feeling. The Chinese don't really need to hide strength&bide time; their natural low charisma and Western preoccupation with signals isomorphic to reproductive value indicators did all the work for them.
It's darkly flattering how very seriously, in comparison, my own people had been taken during the Cold War — with all our grinding poverty, our low trust and laziness, our dysfunctional empire of subsidized third worlders, our bonkers suicidal economic system, and our petty, unvirtuous leadership. Essentially just because we can write, sing, dance, fuck well. Because we can pose and flex to make Americans cast Dolph Lundgren as Ivan Drago and imagine themselves scrappy underdogs, while being precisely the opposite.
So I'm trying to use our theatrical virtues to correct the record.
Would you happen to have a citation/link on Confucius's doctrine of shame/virtue? Would be very interesting for me to compare to the Greeks.
Just read the Analects. I don't know which translation is the best, I generally double check with LLMs.
but this seems okay: http://www.acmuller.net/con-dao/analects.html
The Confucian notion of virtue (De, 德) is more like "moral charisma", the power to overawe lessers by your example and force them to try following it. That's what I see in Liang Wenfeng's project.
A great deal of the Analects is just discussion on the properties of the noble/superior man. Mencius also wrote on this of course.
Of note, Confucius was apparently exceptionally tall and strong, and so might have been a bit confused of how easy it is for a noble man to intimidate people into deference.
Like my old longsword teacher being constantly baffled by the weird things us small people do, including being unable to leverage superior height and reach.
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