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 -
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I imagine Tolkein would decide he was entirely correct and immediately set about finding a way to sail West.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link