I think there's some signal here, but there's several parts I find less convincing.
First, this is clearly AI written. I'm personally fine with that, but the blatantness could be offputting to some.
I buy the central story that multiculturalism became "sacralized" as you describe it. From a problem to be managed --> "this is a GOOD thing actually"
--> "this is literally who we are, how dare you criticize it, BIGOT!!!"
I'm less convinced that this is a good overall framework to evaluate institutions/empires. Your other examples are pretty weak -- you can squint and make the case that they fit, but all grand theories can do that, and yours has to squint pretty hard.
For Rome, you vastly overestimate the centrality of conquest to legitimacy. Expansion was what successful empires did up until 1945. There was some amount of normative buy-in for that during Augustan times, but legitimacy in Republican times had a decent emphasis on civic virtue, while the later empire had an emphasis on stuff like maintaining the grain supply, keeping the army paid and loyal, and charismatic authority. The Roman Empire stopped doing big conquests for the most part, yet still endured for centuries. It was even acceptable to abandon huge sections if they were hard to control (e.g. Germania, Dacia, Mesopotamia). Then of course there was the Byzantine Empire that flourished for a millenium after the West had fallen.
For the USSR, the problem with Communism was the fact that it was Communism. Its problems were baked in from the start, and the only reasons it lasted for decades is 1) because Russia was a rising power beforehand which meant Communism had buffer to do a lot of damage without being fatal, and 2) it abandoned big chunks of Communist principles at various points.
The framework has a distinctive property: it predicts the suppression of its own articulation.
Careful with this line of logic. Statements like this tend to degenerate into "anyone who disagrees is actually just proving my theory even more correct!"
The framework is not unfalsifiable. It can be disproven by answering a single question: Why has enforcement of foundational civic principles become politically costly, and can you explain that without referencing the dynamic identified in this framework?
This isn't really a falsification. A falsification would look like "If we observe Y under conditions C, the theory is false.". Instead, this is "If you can’t produce an explanation of X that I accept, my theory survives." That’s not falsification, it’s inference-to-best-explanation with the judge being the author.
Also, "politically costly" is doing too much work here. In liberal democracies, enforcement of almost anything is costly when it touches identity or distribution conflict. If "pushback, moralization, fear of delegitimization" counts as "political cost," then virtually any contentious enforcement automatically looks like sacralization even when ordinary coalition politics or rights-conflict explains it. The framework risks defining its core claim ("sacralization makes enforcement costly") in a way that absorbs common democratic dynamics as proof.
I find this argument generally compelling - although there's never a single determining factor in this stuff, you've done a good job isolating and naming a concept most people have trouble discussing. It does remind me of Nietzsche, who discusses this process extensively in The Genealogy of Morals, and shares an emphasis on individual character over rationalizing moral systems. I'd recommend taking a look at it for inspiration (Kaufmann or Del Caro translations).
Your link doesn't work. I'm unfiltering this, but I'll be honest, "Read this attached document before responding" is rather demanding for someone who just created a new account to post a manifesto.
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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think there's some signal here, but there's several parts I find less convincing.
First, this is clearly AI written. I'm personally fine with that, but the blatantness could be offputting to some.
I buy the central story that multiculturalism became "sacralized" as you describe it. From a problem to be managed --> "this is a GOOD thing actually" --> "this is literally who we are, how dare you criticize it, BIGOT!!!"
I'm less convinced that this is a good overall framework to evaluate institutions/empires. Your other examples are pretty weak -- you can squint and make the case that they fit, but all grand theories can do that, and yours has to squint pretty hard.
Careful with this line of logic. Statements like this tend to degenerate into "anyone who disagrees is actually just proving my theory even more correct!"
This isn't really a falsification. A falsification would look like "If we observe Y under conditions C, the theory is false.". Instead, this is "If you can’t produce an explanation of X that I accept, my theory survives." That’s not falsification, it’s inference-to-best-explanation with the judge being the author.
Also, "politically costly" is doing too much work here. In liberal democracies, enforcement of almost anything is costly when it touches identity or distribution conflict. If "pushback, moralization, fear of delegitimization" counts as "political cost," then virtually any contentious enforcement automatically looks like sacralization even when ordinary coalition politics or rights-conflict explains it. The framework risks defining its core claim ("sacralization makes enforcement costly") in a way that absorbs common democratic dynamics as proof.
More options
Context Copy link
I find this argument generally compelling - although there's never a single determining factor in this stuff, you've done a good job isolating and naming a concept most people have trouble discussing. It does remind me of Nietzsche, who discusses this process extensively in The Genealogy of Morals, and shares an emphasis on individual character over rationalizing moral systems. I'd recommend taking a look at it for inspiration (Kaufmann or Del Caro translations).
More options
Context Copy link
AI solp detected. How much of this did you actually write yourself, if any?
More options
Context Copy link
Your link doesn't work. I'm unfiltering this, but I'll be honest, "Read this attached document before responding" is rather demanding for someone who just created a new account to post a manifesto.
More options
Context Copy link