site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   27891 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

GK Chesterton and MAGA

Chesterton personifies the paradoxes he loves to pursue in his writing. A member of the Fabian (socialist) party, he is remembered primarily as a bulwark of conservatism. Deeply immersed in early 20th century high British society and culture, he was Catholic rather than Church of England. Writing prose and poetry on the transcendence of family, he never had children.

A populist, he writes a warning to MAGA.

To be sure, Chesterton does not shy away from condemning progressive society. In one memorable anecdote he tells a relativist that in a functioning democracy, the relativist would be burned on a pyre. In his pithy essay "The Return of the Barbarian" (1934), Chesterton states "I do not mean that any of that sort of liberty or laxity or liberal-mindedness has ever had anything to do with civilization." Yet Chesterton writes the essay not as a warning against Liberalism, but to identify the rising Nationalist Socialism of Germany as the true enemy of civilization. Even though the civilization may be decadent, flabby, and decayed, civilization must still fight for civilization. For barbarism is an uncontrollable beast. It contains no introspection, no self-corrective. Chesterton ends the essay in his typical incisive style:

"There are many marks by which anybody of historical imagination can recognize the recurrence: the monstrous and monotonous omnipresence of one symbol, and that a symbol of which nobody knows the meaning; the relish of the tyrant for exaggerating even his own tyranny, and barking so loud that nobody can even suspect that his bark is worse than his bite; the impatient indifference to all the former friends of Germany, among those who are yet making Germany the only test—all these things have a savor of savage and hasty simplification, which may, in many individuals, correspond to an honest indignation or even idealism, but which, when taken altogether, give an uncomfortable impression of wild men who have merely grown weary of the complexity that we call civilization." [Emphasis added].

As a confirmed MAGAt myself, I feel a distinct discomfort reading this warning. There is a cold nihilism and gleeful cruelty in the MAGA intelligentsia. The rank-and-file MAGA populists cower from modern complexity, preferring the comfort of totalizing and simple narratives. If MAGA feels less barbaric than the Brown Shirts it may only be because our civilization doesn’t have the will or vitality to produce real barbarians.

Yet what is else is the solution when faced with Weimar problems? Chesterton lived in the relatively prudish Britain, and did not need to directly confront the debauchery of Weimar Germany. Easy for him to work within his civilization to promote his conceptualization of the common good. What would he have suggested when faced with the ubiquitous celebration of buggery or an importation of an alternative "civilization"?

But, of course, Chesterton (or rather, custom and common sense as channeled by Chesterton) does have the solution. In his essay "On the Instability of the State" he counters the prevailing notions of the Total State by satirizing the ephemerality of modern nations. In contrast, true societal stability is only found in the Family, the bedrock on which all civilization stands. And while the modern assault on the Family threatens to break civilization as assuredly as any barbarian uprising, it is still an institution that takes only two willing companions and the providence of God to initiate. And it is on this rock that the next great civilization will be built. "In the break-up of the modern world, the Family will stand out stark and strong as it did before the beginning of history."

MAGA is not a solution. MAGA is a symptom.

Everyone cowers from modern complexity, preferring the comfort of totalizing and simple narratives. This is not unique to MAGA as a political movement or a culture. The feeling has only gotten worse as the complexity of modern society appears to scale infinitely without limit.

Everyone spills reams and reams and reams of ink about this and that and invents crackpot explanations one after the other to avoid looking at the elephant: that the world (America) changed, (American) society appears to be getting worse, we (Americans) remember it being better, and that we (Americans) would rather go back to before it changed. Of course, Americans only care about Americans, that is their remit. The idea that significant changes happened outside America that had nothing to do with America with massive knock-on effects for Americans is like mentioning to them that their lives are shitty, there is an opioid epidemic, and they are being bombed with illegal immigrants because Mexico has a real gang, drug, and corruption problem. They don't give a shit about Mexico, and they didn't give a shit about Mexico even before there was an opioid epidemic.

None of that has anything to do with the core impulse: things are getting worse and we want them to get better. In lieu of anything to blame, the easy target is the sweeping social and cultural changes across and pushed by culturally dominant, powerful and increasingly aligned branches of American society and government.

Structuring a society around family is how you end up with open tribal wars - maybe you should take a peek at history and the long lines about civil wars of familial succession. Let's not forget that, assuming you're talking about American families, the state has spent decades atomizing the family down to its bare parts. Reversing this is not an effort that can be measured in years, even if the desperate flailing around efforts to fix TFR promises to be maladaptive in quite literal terms.

I'm as much a fan of Chesterton and his fence as anyone else here, but holy shit, guys, the thousands of straws grasped at to MAGAsplain X or Y from both sides of the political fence make me tired just reading them. Somehow "things changed for the worse and we want it to stop" is something a large portion of talking heads have difficulty with. I can at least grok those whose salaries depend on not understanding this fact.

there is an opioid epidemic,

It surprisingly hasn't gotten much press coverage, but opioid overdose deaths in the US are actually down substantially over the last two years. I'll treat it as good news, personally, but I have seen "we ran out of prone-to-addiction folks" mentioned as a possible cause.

It surprisingly hasn't gotten much press coverage, but opioid overdose deaths in the US are actually down substantially over the last two years.

Nothing really surprising about the lack of press coverage -- it would straightforwardly help Trump and Republicans.

I suspect part of it is that new lockdown-inspired addicts have either died off or dried up. Might not explain it all because the uptick started before COVID.

I think that might be part of it, but the first year of real decline was the last of Biden's term. I don't know that 2025 full numbers are out yet.

There's provisional numbers out to August 2025, though.

I wish Chesterton and Tolkein and others could actually see the world of today... What would they then think about the plausibility of their ideas?

Yes, they preferred high-IQ trad-Cath noblesse oblige high society to capitalist mass democracy (Tolkien labelled it Americanism), Nazism, Bolshevism...

But it turns out that high-IQ trad-Cath noblesse oblige high society was not on the menu. It is not served by the chef. It is dead in a ditch.

19th century romantic ideals are not actionable in the industrial age, let alone the internet age. They didn't get defeated on the battlefield, it's not a case of 'damn, we were so close to just loving our families and being good wholesome people in a fine society of freedom and justice and all good things but then the Red Chinese invaded and forcibly made us use Tinder, forcibly taught us about the Kardashians, forcibly aborted more children since 1970 than all those who died in the history of warfare, forcibly made The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power'. That didn't happen, these old ideals could not manage with modernity.

The operating structure of our society and technology led us here. Wind back to the 19th century and we just get here again, faster if anything. The old system was clearly unstable, that's why it isn't around anymore.

Also I think it's no good to criticize others for 'cowering from modern complexity' while hoping that modernity goes away:

"In the break-up of the modern world, the Family will stand out stark and strong as it did before the beginning of history."

The modern world is going to break up? How? Peak oil? The fertility crash? Dysgenics? Climate change?

The better option is working in modernity, enjoying the good parts while avoiding the bad parts. Yes, I don't want to work in subsistence agriculture for my whole life. No, I don't want to work a pretend job shuffling paper around either.

Modern problems require modern solutions. We have these huge government apparatuses, they need to be made efficient and aligned to national goals. We have these huge industrial-technological companies, they need to be aligned better to public benefit rather than solely private self-interest (they need to do more and better worker training and long term investment for a start, don't take me for a socialist). We have the welfare state, it needs to avoid perverse incentives or dysgenically taxing the productive to shelter and multiply the unproductive. We have the internet, we need to make better use of it so people aren't watching short form video all day. We have AI, it needs to be aligned better, not least it needs to stop weighting white lives as a small fraction of black lives.

We will shortly have mass cloning, genetic manipulation, human-like robots. What then for the Family? Modernity has already pretty clearly wrecked the Family, what if it goes straight for the finishing blow?

Furthermore, I don't think that MAGA are 'nihilists'. They clearly believe that something matters! They might be uncouth or unsophisticated, even harsh or mean. But how else are you supposed to manage these tricky issues, mass migration being one they're most interested in? This is the age of fast travel. That isn't just going to go away. These issues need to be wrestled with rather than merely bemoaned like Chesterton does so eloquently. He seems to be of the 'if everyone would just...' school of thought. Nobody has ever 'just' and they're certainly not going to start now.

PS, I was just looking through various essays and it's funny how decidedly anti-Nazi conservative intellectuals of the 1930s basically sounded like Nazis in the early 1920s. Here he makes snide remarks about the Jewish element influencing the British empire and Jews running the Bolsheviks: https://americanliterature.com/author/gk-chesterton/essay/wells-and-the-world-state

Churchill even complains about Judeo-Bolshevism in his article 'Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People'

I don't think that Chesterton would agree with your thesis that "trad-cath society" was "on the menu" in the 1900 in a way that it is not in the 2026. For example, he wrote in What is Wrong with the World:

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.

That doesn't sound like the kind of person who thinks that his Christian ideal is actually "on the menu" in his own time period. Therefore, I suspect that his proposed solution would be basically the same:

the great ideals of the past failed not by being outlived (which must mean over-lived), but by not being lived enough.

My thesis is that 'trad-cath society' was not on the menu in 1900 and still less so in 2026. Whereas Chesterton seems to be saying 'what we need is more Christianity, more Catholicism' when the clear trend is in the other direction, when Catholicism and Christianity is in an absolutely pathetic state in the Western world. If the brakes have failed, jamming your foot on the brakes harder and harder isn't going to do anything.

I mean just look at the world as it is today, Christian doctrine exists in a wholly different reality to what's actually happening in the world. The amount of pornography, sloth, pride, greed, sodomy, promiscuity, children outside of wedlock, profanity, bestiality, saturday trading, materialism, abortion (on a mega-scale and with state sanction/subsidy in many places) is just staggering. How much usury is there? We have oceans of usury, usury so advanced and sophisticated that they wouldn't even have language to describe how usurious it is.

Catholicism has clearly failed if its doctrine is totally ignored and routinely flouted except where Progressives find utility in wearing it like a skinsuit.

What Chesterton needed to do is examine why his proposed solution, despite over 1000 years of Christianity in many places, despite immense piety and crusading and pretty cathedrals, did not actually succeed in getting and maintaining the society he wants. Time moved against it. It's no longer practical to look thousands of years back into the past for guidance.

Just today we have yet more revelations of 'trad-cath' egirls behaving badly, Sarah Stock and Elijah Schaffer. The whole thing is a performative joke, it cannot be implemented in our modern society at scale.

Same with Tolkein's anti-industrialism. Sounds good, doesn't work. Not a real option.

saturday trading

I thought most Christians held Sunday as the Day Of Rest....

I mean just look at the world as it is today, Christian doctrine exists in a wholly different reality to what's actually happening in the world. The amount of [sin]...

I feel like you're sneaking in an assumption that Christianity exists as a system to reduce the absolute amount of "sin" in the world. But it isn't: it freely acknowledged that we mortal humans are in a state of bondage to sinfulness, and only through God's grace exercises of free will in faith and good works can be found worthy. If you really wanted to eliminate sin, you probably shouldn't keep popping out more sinners (although there are traditional Christian anti-natalists like the Shakers). Instead it's a moral framework for self-improvement and

The vision of "Based Catholic Authoritarian State" that enforces morality with an arm of the state is tempting to quite a few folks, but I don't think is generally considered the victory condition you seem to think it is. At best, it seems like those rules existed to encourage true faith (you don't have to go to church Sunday morning, but everything else is closed), not enforce it, although beliefs do differ somewhat.

you're sneaking in an assumption that Christianity exists as a system to reduce the absolute amount of "sin" in the world

Yes, it is? Christians are supposed to be against sin. They didn't bitch and whine when the Arabs blocked pilgrimage routes, they went on Crusade and fought hard to correct this. They forcibly converted the Baltics.

Christians of the past truly believed in their doctrine. They made enormous investments in church buildings back in a time of poverty. They fought immensely bloody wars over doctrine. The Pope's spiritual power made him a huge political player. Show a Carolean or one of Cromwell's soldiers 'Piss Christ' and he'd go on a rampage with pike and sabre.

Based Catholic Authoritarian State is unfeasible now and in 1900. But Ultra Based, Ultra Catholic/Protestant Authoritarian State used to be normal, so normal people didn't even write about it. That was just the expected context of society. Of course you brutally suppress heretics (nevermind Muhammedans, even if you've disgraced yourself you can still go to Austria and kill the Turk!). Of course people might be lynched for atheism or profaning the name of God. That was just common sense.

People now cannot even imagine Anglican death squads moving out to crush Presbyterians, most can scarcely even discern the difference between the two. The majority of Christians wouldn't even countenance the mildest expressions of their ostensible faith or doctrine if it goes against Progressive Doctrine. 55% of US Christians are fine with gay marriage, apparently. 'Extremists' today can get arrested for peacefully protesting or just standing menacingly outside an abortion clinic. Piss Christ gets lots of internet discourse and no bloody torturous executions.

That is how things have changed.

Tolkien, Chesterton and presumably @PyotrVerkhovensky actually think Christianity is true. You seem to be talking about Christianity as if it is a means to an end. An end which you coincidentally don't state anywhere, leaving you open to accusations of nihilism. The people you are trying to convince that Christianity doesn't work to achieve their goals, have Christianity itself as their goal. I don't think your disagreement is about whether Christianity is currently 'working' or not, but about what end we should be working towards. Chesterton et al. are bemoaning the fact that what they believe to be good is getting further and further out of reach and your reply appears to be "ah, but that good is getting further and further away, therefore it can't be good!". I believe "pornography is morally evil" to be an objectively true statement, just like I believe "1+1=2" is an objectively true statement. Whether modern westerners watch porn and whether they are good at arithmetic or not, does not change anything about those beliefs.

Well, how effective do you think Christianity has been thus far in combatting pornography?

https://www.christianitytoday.com/2024/09/pornography-use-christians-study-barna-research-pure-desire-ministries/

In the church, pastors are now more likely report a personal history of porn use (67% versus 57% nine years ago). Nearly 1 in 5 pastors say they currently struggle with porn. And among Christians who have attended services within the last month, more than half say they view pornography at least occasionally.

Christianity is nothing if not diverse. I'm guessing you think 'gay marriage' is morally evil as an objectively true statement too, I don't disagree. But, according to polling, 55% of US Christians support gay marriage. That's not merely a sin but actively going against doctrine. Other countries may vary, I pick America because it's the biggest nominally Christian country.

I don't think they're real Christians, gay marriage is not accepted under Christian doctrine. Presumably they don't think you're a real Christian (oh he missed all the stuff about tolerance and niceness and not judging).

An end which you coincidentally don't state anywhere

I was pretty clear about all the things I think Christianity is against. I could list all the things I think it's for. You seem to agree with me about pornography being against Christianity. I don't see much disagreement between us on Christian doctrine.

But I think, since Christianity is visibly ineffective, it can't be the solution to the real problems in the world. If you think porn is objectively wrong, then what do you think about these pastors? What does that lead you to believe about Christianity in the world today?

It's not very natural to evaluate a single 'effectiveness' of a supposed monolithic thing when, by your own statement, it's not a single monolithic thing. It's very diverse. Unless one is willing to draw boundaries and say, like you kind of do, that a bunch of people aren't "real Christians", then, well, anyone can pretty much just make their own "I'm A Christian" Flag. That significantly complicates the analysis.

For example, if one is willing to draw boundaries, then one has to consider what measure of 'effectiveness' is going to be used for "real Christians"? One person might think that they can conclude that "real Christians" have been ineffective even just in that they have not been able to prevent "fake Christians" from making their own "I'm a Christian" Flags. I imagine others would disagree that that's a proper measure of effectiveness, and they would prefer other measures. There's just not a natural measure to use.

In general I think this class of problems is not dealt with sufficiently by many conservatives. Like, okay, if we take away women’s right to vote, what will be different this time around? We already had that in 1900 and where did it lead us? Here. The same can be said for an all-White society, all-Christian etc. I suppose the argument is something like, “We didnt realize how important having an all-White society was back then so we didn’t jealously guard it, but this time we know and we’ll do things differently.” And I imagine the same goes for patriarchal/Christian/etc. It isn’t a totally absurd argument, but I think it’s lacking. Conservatives at the time definitely understood having a White country was important, they weren’t exactly lacking that information. I struggle with this argument myself as someone that generally-speaking endorses some of these things

Well we have examples of nations correcting their demographics. Algeria for example got rid of all the French there. For about a century the Algerians were getting crushed by France but they still believed in their national destiny. Facing a weakened France in a changed international environment, succeeded.

Christianity is a different matter. I think people no longer truly believe in Christianity, at least not in the West. Some deeply believe in MAGA, white supremacy, progressivism, Zionism, Islamism, Chinese nationalism... Who deeply believes in Christ? Who is ready to fight and die for Christ? What countries are there recently that get less and less Christian, then suddenly more Christian? The US Christian revival I guess... But that looks like a brief reversal in the long-term trend.

It won't last forever, but it'll reset the clock for a while. Every empire will fall, every monument crumble, but the next one will last a while, and so on and so forth. Gibbon wrote a long book. If the reborn United States II lasts a hundred more years instead of twenty, is that such a bad thing to fight for because it falls after that? Impermanence is the simple fact of human events.

One of the things people miss in secular society about Gandhi and MLK for example, is their deep and sincere religiosity. They truly believed that non-violence was sacred, that it was more important than worldly success. When Gandhi told the Jews of Europe to offer themselves to the butcher's knives, he wasn't saying it would work he was saying it was required. That religious duty was more important than success. MLK believed earnestly that the ultimate reward of his efforts would be in heaven, not on earth. Process, not results. THere's no other way for humans to behave.

okay, if we take away women’s right to vote, what will be different this time around? We already had that in 1900 and where did it lead us? Here.

I'm starting to see more people push back to universal male suffrage. Which seems obvious: it's impossible to argue coherently that every man is more capable of voting than every woman. Gender is a bad Schelling point. The problem for much of the right is that any actually good Schelling Point is quite likely to doom the right wing electorally.

I wish Chesterton and Tolkein and others could actually see the world of today... What would they then think about the plausibility of their ideas?

I imagine Tolkein would decide he was entirely correct and immediately set about finding a way to sail West.

The family was never the bedrock of Western Civilization. The Iliad and the Odyssey are for the most part concerned with Brotherhood; the Gospel is wholly concerned with Brotherhood; Roman society revolved around fraternal organizations; medieval society revolved around male guilds or monasteries; American culture revolved around fraternal civic organizations (see detoqueville); and freemasonry (highly influential precursor to modernity) was a brotherhood that emphasized equality between members. It is more correct to say that the bedrock of western civilization is the männerbund and not the family. It is true that men cared much for their family name, but they cared so much because it enabled rewards and status among male peers. All striving was done by men, with men, and for men, negotiated among men outside the family fold. I’m not really sure where this idea originates that the “family” is the bedrock of the West.

Even just at a basic level: Rome was established by two brothers raised outside any family. After one slays the other, he invites other men into the city, exiles and criminals. They proceed to steal women in order to have progeny for their city. Obviously this didn’t happen, but it is a symbolic account of how the Romans saw the foundation of their culture: men negotiating and fighting with other men is the essential thing, women and the family an annoying requirement to keep things moving. And if it is disagreeable that the Roman myth could inform us today, then read the gospel again. Almost immediately, Jesus departs from his parents (curtly rebuking his mom) to find other men with which to found His Kingdom. Some of the Apostles had wives, and they aren’t even mentioned in the writings, so we don’t even know their names. The crucial bit is how men interacted with other men, in the ecclesia or assemblies of men, which prefigured our modern brotherless church, where only men were allowed to speak, where women were taught to “learn quietly with all submissiveness […] not permitted to teach or to exercise authority over a man, rather is to remain quiet”.

the monstrous and monotonous omnipresence of one symbol, and that a symbol of which nobody knows the meaning

Chesterton is funny. He would have done great on Reddit. I wish he were alive today so I could inform him that the Christians used the swastika symbol before they ever represented the cross. Not because I particularly care, but just to dunk on him.

There is a cold nihilism and gleeful cruelty in the MAGA intelligentsia.

When you are a medic on triage, your task already determined, what use is it to cry over destiny? Does civilization begin with weeping? Stephen Miller understands civilization and what it has consisted of since the dawn of time. I’m sure he is familiar with Agincourt and Toledo.

The rank-and-file MAGA populists cower from modern complexity, preferring the comfort of totalizing and simple narratives

And Chesterton’s beloved civilization was at its best when it bathed in a totalizing and simple narrative. Chesterton forgets this. The narrative was “God and King”, and both were simple. There is nothing simpler and more totalizing than the original gospel message, either of Jesus or Paul.

Roman society revolved around fraternal organizations

As others said, this is absolute ignorance of historical realities. Power structure of ancient Rome was more akin to power struggle between huge mafia clans Godfather style. Roman social life revolved around atrium which contained literal altars to ancestors, with portraits and masks of the most important family members who attained some high position or success. Your relation to your clan (gens) was paramount to your identity even as a client of such a powerful clan. Again, if you want some parallel it would be that of huge Scottish clans.

ll striving was done by men, with men, and for men, negotiated among men outside the family fold. I’m not really sure where this idea originates that the “family” is the bedrock of the West.

They were not just random men. They were true patriarchs - father figures to extended clans and their clients and vassals, with membership in thousands or even tens of thousands. The most powerful clans such as gens Cornelia which produced numerous consuls and dictators including Sulla were so powerful, that they even had powerful offshoot clans such as Cornelii Scipiones. You have it exactly the other way around. The relationship between strangers mimicked that of the family, with all the subtle status games and structure given. You literally talk about brotherhood and fraternity - which is family related concept. Brotherhoods have older brothers and fathers. If you were accepted into such a fraternity, you had to accept family obligations including being a bitch to your more senior brothers.

Your relation to your clan (gens) was paramount to your identity even as a client of such a powerful clan. Again, if you want some parallel it would be that of huge Scottish clans.

This is an interesting analogy. The Scottish clan was a weird kind of mannerbund-family hybrid. There was a lot of fictive kinship involved - the clan included all male-line descendants of the founding chief plus their wives and daughters, but it also included a bunch of people living under the chief's protection who accepted him as a symbolic father-figure. But, significantly, the fictive fatherhood of the chief was primary, not the fictive brotherhood of the warband. Some "septs" (originally recognised families within a clan with their own chieftains in fealty to the clan chief, now just surnames that are entitled to wear the clan tartan) are cadet branches of the chiefly family, others are just semi-prominent families living on the clan lands who swore fealty to the chief. There are even families from contested territory which are recognised as septs of two different clans. But the functioning military clan that made the chief powerful was a mannerbund focussed on livestock rustling and defending against livestock rustling. I think this type of society is normal in mountainous pastoral societies.

Unlike Appalachia, the Scottish Highlands don't feel like they are full of mountain men any more. I think we must have bred the mountain-man tendencies out by sending every violent Highlander out to colonialise some dangerous part of the world - the ones who didn't get killed mostly didn't come back either because living in the Highlands ceased to be fun once cattle rustling was illegal.

Snark: If classical civilisation was based on mannerbunds and not families, we would use a Latin word to refer to the mannerbund. We use a German word because we modern Romans see the mannerbund as barbaric and so use the language of the barbarians to describe it. You can imagine a man called Hermann leading his bros into battle in a manly way, but it is much harder with a man called Arminius.

Not snark: While the Highland clans were a functional social system, there was no doubt that they were barbarians. The romanticisation of Highland tradition by lowland Scots and Scottish-Americans happens 100 years after the real culture had been suppressed by the British authorities. When Ambrose Bierce wrote the Devil's Dictionary in 1906, he correctly described the kilt as "worn by Scots in America and Americans in Scotland"

This is an interesting analogy. The Scottish clan was a weird kind of mannerbund-family hybrid. There was a lot of fictive kinship involved - the clan included all male-line descendants of the founding chief plus their wives and daughters, but it also included a bunch of people living under the chief's protection who accepted him as a symbolic father-figure.

It is similar with Roman system. Unsurprisingly it really was something like Italian mafia family. The core of the clan was based on blood relation, with some space made for adoption - but even adoption was mostly family related e.g. when Augustus was Caesar's great-nephew (grandson of Caesars sister Julia). Augustus did not even carry the Julia family name, as his father was just plebeian.

Nevertheless Roman society was based on complicated structure of patronage and master/client relationship of various plebeians and freemen around the clan with family at its core. Many of these positions were hereditary, these clients were part of the clan structure for generations and their service was rewarded. They were something like extended family and in many cases they actually were, given the power of exponential growth just in a few generations. I believe that Scottish clans had similar structure and they provided patronage when it came to valuable people with necessary human capital such as blacksmiths, or people who distinguished themselves in some other way.

Even just at a basic level: Rome was established by two brothers raised outside any family.

Sure, but who was their granddaddy? Aeneas, son of Venus, who carried his elderly father and the family gods out of burning Troy to find a new home for his people (no, not just for his bros).

The only thing more amusing than your ahistorical just-so stories is your confidence that you'd totally p0wn GK Chesterton.

women and the family an annoying requirement to keep things moving

What a truly miserable attitude.

However, as I have pointed out many times, while Rome and Greece and other ancient societies were certainly patriarchal, there is ample evidence (in poems, other writings, and contemporary histories) that feelings of love and affection for wives and children (including daughters!) were not some alien innovation introduced by modernity.

You cite the Iliad and the Odyssey as being all about the bros, nothing but bros, ignoring that the entire reason for the war was the abduction of Helen. You will probably say that was just men fighting over a bauble and the dishonor of having a bauble stolen from them, but Homer, and later poets such as Euripedes and Herodotos, speak of much more complex motivations. Menalaus loved his wife, and whether she betrayed him with Paris or was forcibly abducted depends somewhat on the narrative, but her own thoughts on the matter are expressed as well.

And in the Odyssey, Odysseus's primary motivation is trying to get home to his wife and son! And Penelope is a figure of nobility and faithfulness who is worthy of his devotion.

Try reading what you cite.

As I wrote,

the Iliad and the Odyssey are for the most part concerned with Brotherhood

Maybe 5-10% of the lines are about family life. The majority of the content is about brothers-in-arms doing things. The foundational works of Greek culture are simply not about family. If they treasured family life over “brotherhood” (using the term very broadly) then it would have comprised a majority of their bedrock literature. Most of the time they are very far from their families. This is on purpose, it tells you their values. I’m sure you’ve read the works, of course, so you know this.

Maybe 5-10% of the lines are about family life. The majority of the content is about brothers-in-arms doing things

It's an epic about a war. War and brotherhood was a central feature in that story. It does not support your argument that the ancients did not place a high importance on family.

It's not just the battles and the gods and the monsters that are important. It's *why" they did all those things. The climax of a story may be the only place a hero's motivation is mentioned. That doesn't mean it's not important.

Your reasoning and your theories are very shallow.

The content of the works are what the culture considers important. What the poet spends time describing. What comprises the actual listening experience among the poet’s audience. You have to think more deeply here. You admit the works are about war and brotherhood. Well, why did the Greeks make their two foundational works about war and brotherhood? If you wrote them, perhaps you would make half the text about domestic issues or marital strife or longing for one’s partner. Why did they have a different idea than you? Why is 90% of if not about family life? Saying “it’s a war story” begs the question, because the culture selected a war story as its bedrock text for a reason.

If you wrote them, perhaps you would make half the text about domestic issues or marital strife or longing for one’s partner.

No, I would expect my readers (listeners actually) to understand complex themes, and not read one level deep , counting sentences to determine what is most important to me.

The Iliad and the Odyssey are not about "domestic issues" or family life. But they also are not saying those things were not important.

The Greeks didn't "make" them their "foundational works." Those stories were mostly oral histories of which Homer's written version is what survived. We made them the foundational works of Greek literature. There's considerable survivorship bias in saying "The two most famous poems we know of tell us what was most important to the people listening to them "

The Odyssey and the Iliad were foundational texts of Greek culture and the staple of education for every boy. This is pretty basic knowledge but for a source you can see my comment downthread from the Encylopedia Britannia or consult Wikipedia. This is why Plato names Homer “the one who taught Greece”. Stories in antiquity were never purely entertainment, by the way, they were means of communicating and teaching social values.

Stories in antiquity were never purely entertainment, by the way, they were means of communicating and teaching social values.

Citation extremely necessary.

Under what rubric are you claiming that the Odyssey is “bedrock literature” but Antigone — which is not only centrally about family obligations, but also primarily about a woman — isn’t? If anything, shouldn’t Antigone be a more example of what constitutes “Greek civilization”, as it was written when Greece was at a considerably higher level of technological and artistic development than it had been when the Odyssey was composed?

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Homer-Greek-poet

the two epics provided the basis of Greek education and culture throughout the Classical age and formed the backbone of humane education down to the time of the Roman Empire and the spread of Christianity. Indirectly through the medium of Virgil’s Aeneid (which was loosely molded after the patterns of the Iliad and the Odyssey), directly through their revival under Byzantine culture from the late 8th century CE onward, and subsequently through their passage into Italy with the Greek scholars who fled westward from the Ottomans, the Homeric epics had a profound impact on the Renaissance culture of Italy. Since then the proliferation of translations has helped to make them the most important poems of the Classical European tradition.

Antigone was important as a tragedy but it wasn’t, for instance, the bedrock of Greek education

The family was never the bedrock of Western Civilization.

I’m currently reading Fustel De Coulanges’ The Ancient City, which goes into extreme, meticulously-researched detail about just how profoundly family-centric were all of the ancient legal and religious institutions of Rome, Greece, India, and all of the other major Aryan-derived civilizations. It is simply not remotely tenable to claim otherwise, given a cursory survey of the available information. The extended family — the gens in ancient Rome — exercised totalizing control over the lives, property, inheritance, and legal standing of individuals. Said individuals’ level of kinship was meticulously catalogued and determined their legal standing toward each other, their religious obligations, etc.

You can claim that those civilizations only began to count as “Western Civilization™️” once they began to introduce reforms to mitigate/complicate this paradigm; my observation is that boosters of the “Western Civilization” framing are fairly shameless in the way they selectively pick the parts of ancient history that they want current society to recapitulate now, and fully ignore/misrepresent every counter-example or inconvenient element which would cast their narrative into doubt.

But it was the male heads of the gentes who determined the allocation of privileges and roles per gens, and who put together the rituals, customs, and rules which grew Rome from a collection of backwater kin networks into a civilization. They made their determinations not within the family or family network but between the male heads, in the Senate or through another male-determined process. It was males with families deciding things with other males that have families. The gens existed as a consequence of male political life, as a way to neatly ascribe responsibilities and privileges and promote order.

And? They also thought staring at goat entrails would reveal mystical truths about the universe or earn favor from their gods. Old-timey people did all sorts of dumb shit. Patriarchy was just another log on the dumbass fire.

This is exactly the thing I predicted you would do, though! You acknowledge, apparently, that during the period in which the various Aryan peoples speciated into their various proto-nations (a period which lasted at least a thousand years) they were highly clannish, with each family having pervasive control over the legal and religious life of its members; you just don’t think they counted as “a civilization” (let alone as “Western civilization”) until they began moving away from that paradigm by introducing a political superstructure on top of it. This means that even though the Hellenic peoples spent a much larger period of time without such a superstructure than they did with it, all the before stuff doesn’t factor into your analysis.

You get to pick and choose the precise moment when you think a multi-thousand-year-old societal evolution began to count as a civilization, which means you conveniently discard the preconditions that led to it as long as they don’t satisfy the parameters you want a civilization to look like. In my opinion this reveals the fundamentally constructed and aspirational nature of “Western Civilization” discourse. Do you acknowledge it as such?

If there are human societies which emphasize the family unit, but which have no civilization, then something else is required to cultivate civilization. The Ju/'hoansi have marriage ceremonies and families, but would never develop civilization. The barbarian German tribes practiced more faithfulness in their marriages than the Greeks or Romans, but they didn’t really have civilization. I am using the 19th century of civilization that is appropriate to remarking on Chesterton. A modern anthropologist would probably say all of these are equal civilizations.

This means that even though the Hellenic peoples spent a much larger period of time without such a superstructure than they did with it, all the before stuff doesn’t factor into your analysis.

Well yeah, this makes sense, because we want to look at where their civilization began. If they had 50,000 years of families and extended families, which is possible, then that stuff doesn’t really matter as a bedrock for civilization. If some men get together and steal women as property and then start forming a city that will one day make art and enjoy philosophy, which is Rome, then that’s civilization. If Cistercian monasteries pop up in the middle of nowhere, all unmarried men, and after years a micro-civilization begins to spring up nearby as an outgrowth of their industry, then that’s civilization founded on the opposite of the family. Or if some of Alexander’s troops get bored and settle down with some women they took, then that’s civilization with a very ad hoc family. I can imagine Spanish troops taking indigenous wives in Mexico and forming a little city with art and music — in what sense can we plausibly say that the foundation of this is the family?

You get to pick and choose the precise moment when you think a multi-thousand-year-old societal evolution began to count as a civilization

I suppose we first have to determine what we mean by civilization; I’m pretty sure Chesterton has a certain thing in mind.

you conveniently discard the preconditions that led to it as long as they don’t satisfy the parameters you want a civilization to look like. In my opinion this reveals the fundamentally constructed and aspirational nature of “Western Civilization” discourse. Do you acknowledge it as such?

Western tradition is to only call certain things “civilized”. I guess we can disagree with this, but is that a fruitful inquiry? This may be a matter of taste, but I highly doubt Chesterton would believe that the pygmies of Africa have civilization because they are mostly monogamous.

But your original claim was that “family was never the bedrock of Western Civilization.”. You then brought up Greece and Rome as central examples of “Western civilization.” But both Greece and Rome did have family as the bedrock of their civilization for a very very long time! It still occupied a massively important part of their society long after the point when they had collectively achieved elements of social and technological development that you identify in this post as preconditions for civilization: art, philosophy, and industry.

Were they “civilized” but not “Western civilization” at that point? When, chronologically or otherwise, did they officially become Western?™️ (Surely “Western” in this peculiar usage must not have any consistent relationship with geography, as you believe that the Greeks (and somehow the Hebrews, presumably) are more “Western” than the Celtic and Germanic tribes who were physically situated farther to the geographic west.

I’m open to conceding that there is some combination of societal and technological development at which a polity can be said to be (lowercase c) “civilized”: some identifiable factors might be the ability to coordinate large-scale public works, pooling of resources, economies of scale, the ability of the centralized power structure to reliably feed its constituents, the facilitation of leisure activities, etc.

However, under that understanding, the Third Reich was extremely “civilized”. It was wealthy, highly politically centralized, had a thriving artistic and philosophical life, and was in every way a peer competitor to the other rich European powers. Whatever Chesterton seems to mean by “civilized”, it has only a tenuous connection to those elements.

The tribes of pre-civilized Greece and Rome may very well have practiced family-oriented extended kin networks for hundreds of thousands of years before they ever developed into a civilization. Lots of primitive tribes did that. The road from the dark ages to the archaic period to the classical civilization of Greece is marked by a different activity: male political formation involving the polis. The men leaving the family to go join (or obey) other men in political matters. Is my understanding correct that you want me to call the Greek dark ages “civilization”?

It still occupied a massively important part of their society long after the point

No doubt, but that doesn’t make it the bedrock of the civilization — the necessary precondition, the cornerstone, the thing which once achieved places them on the road to civilization.

However, under that understanding, the Third Reich was extremely “civilized”. It was wealthy, highly politically centralized, had a thriving artistic and philosophical life, and was in every way a peer competitor to the other rich European powers. Whatever Chesterton seems to mean by “civilized”, it has only a tenuous connection to those elements.

But I am disagreeing with Chesterton, though retaining the appropriate turn-of-the-20th century understanding of “civilization”. Here, as an example, is the definition of civilization in Webster’s 1913 dictionary:

The act of civilizing, or the state of being civilized; national culture; refinement. *”Our manners, our civilization, and all the good things connected with manners, and with civilization, have, in this European world of ours, depended for ages upon two principles -- . . . the spirit of a gentleman, and spirit of religion. Burke”. Civilized: Reclaimed from savage life and manners; instructed in arts, learning, and civil manners; refined; cultivated.

This is what I mean by civilization. I don’t see much of a reason to determine the exact moment something constitutes civilization. To paraphrase the highest court in our civilization: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["civilization"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the [hodgepodge kin networks] involved in this case is not that.”

I was a history major in college, and one of the biggest problems I have with non-professional pop historians (Howard Zinn, Jared Diamond, etc.) as opposed to academic historians who actually have formal training is that the former tend to invent just-so stories and compile evidence to support them, as though the truth of a thesis is determined by the number of footnotes. Meanwhile, there is so much counter-evidence available to anyone who does even a cursory investigation that the entire thesis can be dismissed entirely. One of the problems I always had with history writing is that every time I thought I had to develop a thesis I'd inevitably have to retool it after finding something that didn't fit, which happened about sixteen times per project. Hell, to give you a sneak preview to the next Pittsburgh series installment, I was researching the City Beautiful movement from the late-19th and early 20th centuries. The classic story is that the movement was inspired by the White City at the 1983 World's Fair in Chicago, but supposedly those in the know know that the real inspiration for the movement was the 1901 McMillan Plan to redesign Washington, D.C. Except a good number of buildings supposedly built as part of the movement predate the plan, and eliminating them seems wrong. Then again, there were antecedents and it only makes sense that they would get merged with the new movement, and now I've spent two hours researching a point from an introductory section that will nonetheless inform how I treat the rest of the piece. This is especially difficult because my normal instinct would be to "teach the controversy", which means writing six paragraphs to go in-depth on the history of a city planning movement because I want to use the movement's precepts as a framing device to describe a neighborhood. It's frustrating as hell, and it happens all the time. It would be a lot easier if I just put blinders on, limited myself to one sentence "The City Beautiful movement started with the White City at the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago" and forgot about it. But then I might just be repeating a myth, and that's the last thing I want to do, put myself in the same league as Jared Diamond even though the stakes are a lot lower.

He may be best known to the layman for his pop history revisionist slop, but Howard Zinn was very much an academic historian with formal training.

That seems like a general problem though that applies to plenty of academics as well, especially once politics gets involved. For an example, I've read more than enough articles by such claiming that hunter-gatherers were often gender egalitarian, citing tribe after tribe where, say, women are involved in hunting, or men are involved in cooking, or men are involved in child-rearing, drowning you in citations that superficially seem like their case is ironclad.

Then you read the opposite position - sometimes another academic historian, sometimes not - and they point out how even in the cited tribes, women actually only "hunt" in the sense of laying traps for small game, men still do just the most physically demanding parts of preparing food and leave the majority to the women, and the men also only teach older children useful skills, while again leaving the younger children to the women. And more importantly, they actually go quantitative and show how cherry-picked these few tribes even are, and that the great majority of those we know is even less gender-egalitarian.

I was a history major in college, and one of the biggest problems I have with non-professional pop historians (Howard Zinn, Jared Diamond, etc.) and academic historians who actually have formal training is that the former tend to invent just-so stories and compile evidence to support them, as though the truth of a thesis is determined by the number of footnotes. Meanwhile, there is so much counter-evidence available to anyone who does even a cursory investigation that the entire thesis can be dismissed entirely.

Following up Guns, Germs, and Steel with a just-so story of the precipitous decline of Easter Island in Collapse which conveniently ignored, y'know, the obvious and terribly destructive germs part, was peak Jared Diamond.

all these things have a savor of savage and hasty simplification, which may, in many individuals, correspond to an honest indignation or even idealism, but which, when taken altogether, give an uncomfortable impression of wild men who have merely grown weary of the complexity that we call civilization."

Honestly, this resonated with me in the sense that a lot of left-leaning people I've talked with are OK with:

  • Rioting and disturbing the peace
  • Lying about the law to make people believe that ICE is breaking it (specifically that ICE needs to show random people warrants, ICE cannot arrest a US Citizen, ICE cannot detain an immigrant while their immigration case is being processed.)
  • Saying that if the law might be popular but only because people do not understand it and also Democracy can be morally wrong sometimes and so those who know better need to act outside the law.
  • If the law is bad then the option is not to change it because changing it will take too long and people are being Abducted Now!
  • Saying anarchism is looking appealing.

Meanwhile, someone on the left could make their own list of what right-leaning people are doing:

  • Enforcing the law in a reckless manner
  • Lying about the law to make themselves look better (in the case of Pretti and bringing a gun to a protest.)
  • Trying to remove Birthright citizenship out of fear that the electorate will not prefer their policies if Birthright citizenship continues.
  • Saying we're in a cold Civil War.

I think our nation is broken and I'm sad about it. I do not know how to restore a sense of common brotherhood between the blue haired Karen and the MAGA HVAC repair guy. If we're lucky we'll get attacked from the outside and band together against a common threat. If we're unlucky I think we'll just struggle against each other until one group loses all hope of pretense to power.

I think that the Trump administration displays unique characteristics which were not displayed by recent other presidents.

There is his utter inability to even understand that some people use language to communicate information about the state about that hypothetical generalization of human perception we call reality, sadly imitated by his underlings. If he is making noises which might sound to the initiated like factual claims about how many dog sleds defend Greenland, anyone who has followed him for more than two tweets will notice that he is utterly incapable of making anything which is a factual claim. Presumably, if he were to call 911 to report that the White House was on fire, the operator would simply wonder what political message he would want to transport with that.

Likewise, he seems dangerously removed from a common understanding of the upper classes how things are done, the informal rules on how society is conducted. When Biden pardoned his son, that was noteworthy, scandalous. With the Trump administration, pardons of political allies, people who bribe him by buying his shitcoin etc is not a scandal but a Tuesday.

This also makes him certainly more unpredictable. A sane-ish, elite ruler might certainly make decisions which are terrible for the country, but will likely fail in predictable ways, like some king starting a stupid war he can't win. A ruler not bound by elite expectations is much more likely to find novel and exciting failure modes, like le terreur or WW2. Sometimes out-of-the-box thinking is useful, but often the box was placed there intentionally. GWB and his cronies, for all their many faults, would not have tried to dismantle free trade or dismantle the alliance the US had build under the banner of the polite fiction of the international rule-based order.

Lying about the law to make people believe that ICE is breaking it (specifically that ICE needs to show random people warrants, ICE cannot arrest a US Citizen, ICE cannot detain an immigrant while their immigration case is being processed.)

While I am sure that a lot of the grassroot left is lying, I think their leadership is a bit better. OTOH, from the WH you will get plenty of takes on laws which are just plain wrong.

ICE can arrest an US citizen for disrupting their work illegally, sure. But detaining someone on the suspicion of them being an illegal immigrant seems to be a-ok only if the arestee is not a citizen. The government rounding up people and IDing them, effectively forcing their focus groups to carry proof of citizenship on pain of being hassled for a few hours feels very Unamerican.

The government rounding up people and IDing them, effectively forcing their focus groups to carry proof of citizenship on pain of being hassled for a few hours feels very Unamerican.

Did you happen to live through the initial drama surrounding the passage of the REALID Act and the inexorable change to support of even the most adamant critics? There is perhaps nothing more American at this point than performatively complaining about the growth of "Papers Please" to participate in society while opponents are in power then conveniently contributing to that very growth when the political winds change.

The Biden admin really did step way outside the post-watergate norm for domestic policy in an escalatory manner. His war on domestic terror was mostly just political harassment of dissidents, the decision to open the borders was unprecedented, and the tech censorship coercion was way out of bounds.

Yes, Trump is somewhat unique. But he's not unique in being unique.

But detaining someone on the suspicion of them being an illegal immigrant seems to be a-ok only if the arestee is not a citizen.

This is pretty clearly untenable, because it would mean ICE would have to be perfect.

Democratic leadership is not doing too well in the truth department either. Walsh said ICE is not law enforcement. for instance.

But detaining someone on the suspicion of them being an illegal immigrant seems to be a-ok only if the arestee is not a citizen.

No, looks like you fell for misinformation as well. Unless by a-ok you mean some value judgement outside the law. Congress explicitly gave ICE the power (without warrant) "to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;" (8 USC 1357) (emphasis mine)

We have a very recent Supreme Court case (Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo) that helps us understand both what ICE's operating parameters are and that they are within the bounds of law. Someone can be detained by ICE on reasonable suspicion that they are violating immigration law or is involved with a violation of U.S. immigration law by another person. If there is reasonable suspicion, ICE is allowed to stop someone, ask them for ID, if they do not have ID on their person then ask for identifying details like name and address, and run them through a database to try to narrow down their immigration status.

For an example of reasonable suspicion, there was an incident where someone (let's call him Bob) saw another person with an ignored final removal order being arrested by ICE. Bob fled in another direction. Fleeing from officers creates reasonable suspicion! Perhaps that is what Bob intended. The ICE officers left the person they were there for and chased after him. He was arrested, refused to answer questions, and was taken into custody so that his identity could be determined. Bob is a US citizen, but taking him into custody seems reasonable and A-ok to me!

ICE’s policy is that no one can be lawfully taken into custody, or even questioned, on the basis of skin color. Ethnicity is never on it's own a sufficient basis for probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion. However, several factors when taken together can create reasonable suspicion:

  • the types of job they worked (people unlawfully present disproportionately work in certain kinds of jobs)

  • presence at particular locations (people unlawfully present are disproportionately found at certain places, like car washes and construction sites)

  • language and accent (people unlawfully present disproportionately speak languages other than English, or speak English with a heavy accent)

  • apparent race or ethnicity.

The Supreme Court agreed with ICE on this assessment that in combination (though not in isolation) these factors can create reasonable basis for a Terry Stop.

Refusing to cooperate with a Terry Stop, refusing to roll down your window, show ID, get out of the vehicle when asked, etc, are all things that will get you arrested, whether it is ICE or your local beat cop who's trying to talk with you.

It's normal to see the underclass act badly when stopped by the police. What's been weird is seeing middle-aged PMC respond to reasonable police requests like someone caught driving on a weed binge. The only reason they are acting like that is because they've been told it's right and just to act like that.

Edit: For example, here is a video of local police responding to a car crash. They detain a witness for the sole reason that he refused to leave his name and contact information with police. This is actually really normal! Refusing to identify yourself to law enforcement, even in absence of suspicion of committing a crime, will get you detained.

Likewise, he seems dangerously removed from a common understanding of the upper classes how things are done, the informal rules on how society is conducted. When Biden pardoned his son, that was noteworthy, scandalous. With the Trump administration, pardons of political allies, people who bribe him by buying his shitcoin etc is not a scandal but a Tuesday.

That's complete opposite of what happened. When Biden made his pardons, the pro-establishment people barely discussed it. Nowadays they bring up Trump's pardons as some unthinkable line to cross, and they do so without any reference to what Biden did.

If Chesterton is correct about Barbarism, one of the key attributes is a lack of introspection. Yes, there is barbarism in the far left. But that is my out-group. It takes no introspection, or indeed effort, for me to enumerate the sins of the left. And I would be tempted to do so, but I only have 500,000 characters at my disposal.

The history of stasis- which is what we're going through- shows us that mutual deescalation is the only way out. Key word- mutual. Obviously Trump needs to deescalate. But so does the blue haired Karen(I thought these were different archetypes?). The Biden admin's approach to the 'war on domestic terror' was exactly wrong too.

Now this isn't, probably, going to happen, on either side. But Trump is term limited out in a way the blue-hairs(I remember a time when this meant something different) aren't. Ignoring Trump, backing down on the #resistance, running normal democrats without controversy, and letting cultural conservatives be has to be the start, simply because Trump will, for better or worse(and I suspect it will be, and can be, worse), is gone in January 2029. I don't know that they're capable of it, but it's a necessary start.

I thought these were different archetypes?

Old-school Karens were Gen X, stereotypically cynical and thus shamelessly abusing their privilege to humiliate service workers.

New Karens are Millennials, stereotypically idealistic and thus conscientiously abusing their privilege in the name of "the greater good".

The greater good.

Oh, shut it!

I should've written "basic human decency" to help those with an urge to quote.

”Bonum commune communitatis” intensifies

Well, she did have a very annoying laugh.

The best solution to an iterative prisoners dilemma was to alternate Tit-for-tat with cooperation, regardless of what the opponents strategy is. MN ICE is perhaps a suitable tat for Biden's tit of purposefully bringing in millions of immigrants. But it has to have a limit and then Conservatives need to try cooperation.

Edit: Blue hairs grew up and are now acting like insurrection Karens with law enforcement. Sorry if it's not the right descriptor, but I think you understood what I meant anyways.

Fair, but the dem leadership is straight up saying they're going to defect again next time they're in power. They should stop having the house minority leader announce his intention to prosecute everyone who works for ICE as table stakes.

The best solution to an iterative prisoners dilemma was to alternate Tit-for-tat with cooperation, regardless of what the opponents strategy is.

No. If the opponent's strategy is "Always Cooperate" or "Always Defect", the best strategy is the same for total payoff, and "Always Defect" for their own payoff.

I was going off of: https://tryingtruly.substack.com/p/how-generous-tit-for-tat-wins-at-life

Rule 1 - Be nice (technically meaning always co-operate on the first round).

Rule 2 - From then on just copy what the other player did in the previous round (meaning an eye for an eye and a hug for a hug).

Rule 3 - After you retaliate, always try to co-operate again in the next round.

This is for turn-based rounds. Simultaneous rounds “win-stay, lose-shift" wins. Does our electoral system more closely match turn-based or simultaneous?

If the opponent's strategy is "Always Cooperate" or "Always Defect", the best strategy is the same for total payoff, and "Always Defect" for their own payoff.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if we're actually playing iterative prisoner's dilemma against a variety of competing strategies (and we can't know what any given opponent is going to play), the "permanent retaliation strategy" (also called "tit for tat without forgiveness" - you cooperate until your opponent defects a single time, then you always defect no matter what) is optimal, both for individual and collective gain.

But yes, the "permanent defector" is not far off in points for individual payoff.

The best strategy when playing a counterparty with an unknown strategy is not the best strategy against every possible strategy. If you know the counterparty's strategy you can do better, and sadly if you know it's "Always Defect", the best you can do is to match it.

If you know the counterparty's strategy you can do better, and sadly if you know it's "Always Defect", the best you can do is to match it.

Well, yes, trivially.

The best strategy when playing a counterparty with an unknown strategy is not the best strategy against every possible strategy.

I think I don't get it. What's the difference? Is your point that "every possible strategy" contains some really dumb strategies and "a counterparty with an unknown strategy" must be assumed to be somewhat optimized?

Of course, one of the big issues with the ‘Trump is a fascist’ narrative is that no, he’s not. Trump is not a palingenetic ultranationalist, he’s not a totalitarian, he doesn’t seem to have much ideology to begin with, really. Words have meanings.

Trump is running on economic populism, strong executive, and (in practice very mild)retrenchment from the eastern hemisphere.

Agreed, Trump is not a fascist. But there are "barbaric" inclinations in the MAGA right, and we need a more pro-civilization (though still right-wing) counter to this barbaric instinct.

As a confirmed MAGAt myself, I feel a distinct discomfort reading this warning.

For my part, I can kinda see what you mean, if I squint. Otherwise it's hard to tell if this is supposed to be a criticism of Trump / populists, or our current establishment.

In contrast, true societal stability is only found in the Family, the bedrock on which all civilization stands. And while the modern assault on the Family threatens to break civilization as assuredly as any barbarian uprising, it is still an institution that takes only two willing companions and the providence of God to initiate.

Yeah... Look, I'm a big fan of the "clean your room" approach to life and society, but it's a bit hard to gloss over the "modern assault on the Family" bit, the way you did. Are we supposed to smile and nod as it's happening? Is every rebellion an assault on order and civilization? If not, what specific lines has Trumpism crossed to make it unacceptable to civilization 'n order enjoyers?

Our current establishment is terrible. They are feckless. They are weak. In a very real sense, they've lost.

I don't think we should smile and nod. I think creating strong families is actually one of the great ways to fight back.

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