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 -
Well, no. (Actually, I'd argue traditionalism really doesn't "run" on anything so much as it is a mostly-blind adaptation to it. But this is also coming from someone who sees [the kind of person who becomes a] traditionalist and [the kind of person who becomes a] progressive as the exact same thing, in their hearts.)
The problem here has always been economic. Before the advent of the "energy wherever we want it"- hallmark of the early 20th century- that was literal man power. There's a concept called "primary and secondary goods" that explains this pretty well- men extract primary goods (sexual dimorphism gives men an advantage in this area), women turn those primary goods into secondary goods (including children, it's worth noting). The problem, of course, is that while not having secondary goods is bad, not having primary goods is catastrophic. Sociofinancial power, then, is naturally controlled by men.
And so here's where I tap my sign: traditionalism (Abramic religions most famously) simply doesn't have an answer for when [the place men get their power from] is supplanted by technology- except for the null answer which is "turn inwards and die"[1]. And this resulted in two things:
Which is why traditionalism gave way to progressivism, and was also why the 20th century (and especially the first half) was full of alternative answers to one or both of those questions (what that answer actually was depended on the local conditions: communism is a natural fit for places with a low ratio of people to economic opportunity like Russia or China [or the entirety of the Middle Ages- equally worthless is still equal], whereas fascism is natural for places with a high ratio like 1930s Germany). Technology naturally drives this ratio down, which is part of why fascism really isn't a viable answer today while communism remains sympathetic[2].
Those questions still haven't really been resolved, because the winner of that conflict was the only remaining frontier nation (that didn't at the time, and still doesn't, have any productive way to answer this question beyond "be rich lol") that threw resources at the conflict until it vassalized basically the entire world, and if your society has a more productive answer to that question you'll just get invaded. So it goes.
[1] Now, I get that a lot of men really do like this [even some intelligent ones, on occasion]; especially since the Taliban spent 20 years providing an object lesson to the West in just how successful a strategy like that could be, and the fact the largest cities didn't even bother to resist them suggested that Taliban rule was what [the men responsible for holding up the US-led order] wanted all along. Which is a valid assumption, because the US-led order offers literally nothing to men, and if it happened in the continental US many believe that a campaign of white feathers would be ineffective.
[2] Socialism naturally occurs in populations where the variance in ability to extract that economic opportunity, and the variance in that opportunity, is low (for a variety of reasons both internal, like bad land, or external, like being a vassal state of a greater power); liberalism naturally occurs when it is high (great powers not being liberal is historically unusual).
More options
Context Copy link