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 -
Uh... If we accept your taken on what constitutes "propaganda" and "The Dark Arts," then we have effectively defined "writing a persuasive essay" out of existence. You just took the standard curriculum of Rhetoric 101, which has been taught since Aristotle was walking around the Lyceum telling people not to mumble, and then went ahead and relabeled it as psychological warfare.
Look at the specific "sins" Devereaux admits to in the passages you quoted.
He admits to "practicing argumentation." He admits to "reasoning soundly." He admits to "writing well." He explicitly states his goal is to "build a base of knowledge" so that the reader understands the context before he delivers his conclusion. Duh? He's not writing as a historian for other historians, though I presume he does that at some point. This is a public blog that caters to a much broader audience of nerds interested in history.
If all of this is propaganda, then what's the alternative? Is the only "honest" non-propagandist mode of communication to scream incoherent, context-free conclusions at a stranger while making no effort to be understood? A maths textbook? I imagine that most historical treaties would count as "propaganda" using such a counter-productive and indiscriminate definition.
If you continue insisting on that counting as “propaganda,” then you have ruled in basically every public intellectual worth reading, including the ones people here cite approvingly when they are on their side. It certainly rules in nearly all political writers, most historians who write for a general audience, and basically every one who wants to be read by someone other than their dissertation committee.
It rules me in, it rules you in, and it rules in everyone involved in this thread, probably everyone who ever posted on the internet. If that's a crime, you're going to need a prison the size of the internet too, and isolation rooms for us argumentative wordcels.
We are all here on The Motte. We are all selecting specific arguments to support our priors. We are all trying to frame our words to be palatable to the community so we are not downvoted into oblivion. We are all "building a ledger" of credibility so that people will listen when we have something controversial to say. If Devereaux is a propagandist for organizing his essays to be persuasive, then you are a propagandist for organizing your comment to persuade me that he is one. My dog is a propagandist for whining and making puppy eyes at me when he's hungry.
There is also an irony in quoting him explaining that public engagement should not be confused with activism, and then immediately calling him a propagandist. Devereaux explicitly telling you “I am trying to communicate expertise to a broad audience, and I am aware of the difference between explaining and campaigning,” and you are responding “aha, you admit to explaining things persuasively, therefore you are campaigning.” That is not a gotcha. You're playing a linguistic shell game and expanding definitions so you can say someone you dislike is a criminal because he littered once.
Your reasoning appears to be:
He admits to using persuasive techniques.
Persuasive techniques are propaganda.
Therefore, his conclusions are suspect.
I feel like you broke something in step 2.
There is a distinction to be made between "propaganda" and "pedagogy," or between "manipulation" and "persuasion."
Propaganda usually implies a bypass of the critical faculties. It relies on lies, omissions, or raw emotional appeals to trick the audience into a belief they would not hold if they had the full picture.
(And I've already given an example of what is technically propaganda, yet still good: public health advice)
That is an empirical charge. It requires examples from the contested posts, not a quote where he says “tone matters” and “don’t be condescending.”
I await examples, if they exist.
Right now, all you've presented is: “this guy is persuasive and self-aware about being persuasive.” Fine. So is every effective writer. Including the writers you like. Including you, right now, trying to get me and others to see him as a sinister propagandist/Culture Warrior rather than a historian making arguments.
Yes, except it's not us who's done it, it's Bernays. Or even Devereaux himself:
Edward could not have said it better.
A persuasive essay is, by definition, propaganda. It is intentionally propagating its perspective. Your problem is that you think propaganda is bad. It's not. Propaganda for things I don't like is bad. Propaganda for things I do like is good. That's the point.
In other words, you forgot to attach the yes_chad.jpeg.
Do you agree that this definition of propaganda makes us all propagandists, including you? If so, I have nothing to add.
You might want to rethink that one my man. I specifically gave two examples of "good" propaganda, namely hand washing advocacy posters and public health messaging in general.
I also note:
And:
If the entire point of @FCfromSSC 's post was that he doesn't like Brett Devereaux, that would be a much less interesting post. Instead, he also specifically defends the hypothesis Brett critiques.
Yes, most people are propagandists for the things they care about, myself included.
The differences are in what you care about, and how aware you are of the propaganda of others. When those people are cashing in their ledger, are you aware of it? Do you notice? And if you do, do you ever say, you money's no good here?
I like reading about ironworking and Tolkein and Rome, but for Bret, that credibility simply won't spend with me when it counts, when he wants it to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link