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 am a bit more sympathetic to the idea of 'wreckerism' as a distinct phenomenon. As I've seen it used thus far, it tends to refer to those personalities who cannot surrender their own ideological purity for the benefit of the group's overall mission. It has existed since at least the 1970s, if not since the dawn of time. Spend enough time in group spaces of any persuasion and this dynamic is obvious. There will always be people who join for more self-serving reasons than mission-serving reasons, and vice versa. It's very hard to screen for this.
Now, I do think hyper-leftist spaces have a unique challenge in that their ideas attract more of these personalities in part because of the general ressentiment of their politics and in part because leftists tend to be averse to commonsense social policing for fear of being 'exclusionary.' In this sense, 'wreckerism' is a sort of absurd escalation of leftist epistemology and ethics. However, there are plenty of leftists and leftish people (I've met them and perhaps you could consider me one) who are able to hold the fundamental tenets of the worldview without devolving into endless internecine conflict. There are discussions to be had about what distinguishes these types of people. I just don't think it's accurate to call it a problem of the entire camp. This is a distinct, vocal faction that everyone happens to kowtow to at the first sign of instigation. It's this kowtowing that needs to stop.
I also can't help but reiterate that they stopped enforcing their cover fee, which is the idiocy that kicked off this whole chain of events.
"Wrecking" is when someone sabotages the Soviet Union. At first they thought they would be a very productive utopia. By implementing socialism it would automatically transform into prosperity and advancement in every way. Then that didn't happen. By the 1930s it was clear they were getting stuck somehow. So Stalin determined there must be "wreckers" purposefully harming society and particularly sabotaging industry. Such people were identified, tortured into confessing and executed. Then their torturers were tortured and executed. Then the torturer-torturers were tortured and executed. And so on. One indeed wonders why this enlightened society failed to progress into a sci-fi eutopia.
Anyways it's commie talk for "saboteur". As invented or at least popularized by Stalin himself.
Is this factual?
Yes, it's factual. It's maddening that people don't know this sort of thing, given our society's purported obsession with searching for any visible sign, marker or dogwhistle of genocidal totalitarianism, provided it's not visible signs, markers or dogwhistles of the genocidal totalitarianism that's considered super-cool and popular with large portions of the tribe most obsessed with the search.
More options
Context Copy link
I thought that literally happened in the 1930s with the NKVD iteratively denouncing and torturing their own members and leadership.
A cursory look at Google confirms this. Not every last torturer was himself later tortured. But there were waves of denouncements. Multiple cycles of this. I know it sounds like absurd parody, but it appears to have happened.
More options
Context Copy link
Wikipedia indicates (1 2 3) as follows:
1936: Kamenev and Zinoviev are interrogated by Yagoda's NKVD and executed
1938: Yagoda is interrogated by Yezhov's NKVD and executed
1940: Yezhov is interrogated by Beria's NKVD and executed
1953: Beria is executed
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is the core problem with the left. They have no ideological immune system. There's no way, within the confines of modern leftism, to rebuke or defend against someone who attacks from a more left position. And if they develop such an immune system, such a capacity for psychologically handing trade-offs or accepting that some desirable things are too costly, then they lose their most effective tool against the right.
I'd argue that it's the core problem with the Boomer right as well, that they fundamentally believe in victim culture over honor culture or dignity culture.
You have seen a lot of people on the right "troon out" as they say, completely abandoning their stated beliefs, when they see a video of a sympathetic woman being deported. Like Joe Rogan will be so persecuted by the left that he'll move to a different state. But then he sees a sad video, and he's back to voting Democrat again.
"Women's tears win in the marketplace of ideas"
I believe that's a slur against trans women rather than a more general criticism.
There's another meaning. It means that you have a weak frame. You hear some stuff that makes you feel something and you cave to pressure instead of maintaining that frame. You change something fundamental about yourself to please other people. In the worst, stupidest case, to please your critics or enemies.
There's a constant temptation to do this if you're on the right but you're not rural or working class. Everyone around you is constantly pressuring you. John Cornyn loses his Senate primary by 27 points, breaths a sigh of relief, and starts countersignalling Trump. His wife is happy. His kids are happy. The women in his wife's book club are happy. "So glad you came around John. Sure we don't like the crime and taxes, but Trump is such a meany. Did you hear about that kid they shot in Austin last week?"
It's so much easier to troon than to hold out against the pressure. Just means you have no frame.
More options
Context Copy link
Using it as a general synonym of "go insane" is unorthodox but not totally unreasonable.
Oh, I use it to refer to when a leftist or theater kid gets inappropriately, expressively euphoric in a social setting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What is this "most effective tool" that risks being lost in the face of pragmatism? I'm not sure I'm following you.
The intransigence that comes with a refusal to tolerate tradeoffs. There's an endless cycle of argument that go (very simplified):
Left: We want Good Thing.
Right: Good Thing costs too much. We have Lesser Good Thing at home.
Left: You just hate Good Thing! You want Bad Thing because you are evil! Good Thing now!
If Left actually accepts the premise that there are real costs and trade-offs to consider and haggle and compromise over, then they're not really Left anymore. They're just a boring Math Liberal. Boring Math Liberal doesn't fire up passion. Boring Math Liberal has to sometimes admit he was wrong. He can't be a romantic revolutionary. He has to stop dehumanizing the outgroup. And dehumanizing the outgroup is a very, very, very powerful technique. It gives a nexus to coordinate and rally around. It creates solidarity.
That solidarity is, imo, the most effective tool. "No enemies to the left" means that attacks from the right just get ignored and shrugged off. It allows expansive motte-and-bailey tactics.
Leftists will fixate on their own intercine squabbles, but they don't accept intrusion into the "family business" from outsiders. Hasan Piker is every bit as much of a rabid, malevolent extremist as any literal National Socialist, but almost no one on the left is going to nod along to right-aligned criticisms, even while the man is wishing for the deaths of his own side's moderate faction.
Policing your extremists takes time, attention, and vulnerability. The left refuses to pay that price, so they're starting to pay a different one as the extremists eat them from the inside.
Everything is a social construct and can be reconstructed arbitrarily. The idea that a house must account for objective physical reality to stand is just a myth created by builders to limit the diversity of homes that we can live in, and they do this to maintain their own power and prestige. The Three Little Pigs was just capitalist propaganda all along.
More options
Context Copy link
I would say there are two types of Good Things - one is indeed costing too much, such as universal unlimited healthcare, or giving free house to every person that doesn't have one. The other is just plain impossible - such as original communism (stateless post-scarcity society where everybody voluntarily works for everybody else's good) or abolishing the police and not having crime rates shoot up. The former ones are somewhat boring, the latter ones, being untethered from any reality on the ground, are visionary and inspirational. That's what people who see being untethered from reality as a benefit flock to. These people are almost impossible to dissuade - since their conviction never rooted in any realistic assumptions, providing them evidence would just convince them you are a hater.
He is a National Socialist, just for a different nation.
More options
Context Copy link
Interesting. I think you're definitely on to something and what you're identifying is important, but my gut tells me there's more to it than that. I'll chew on it and see if I can elaborate.
Yeah, my post there was definitely a bit muddled. It started with one idea, but I think the last two sentences are probably the important part. Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify my own thinking a bit more.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link