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'm not really following DHH, so I can't comment on him, but I'm not seeing it. Jordan Peterson didn't lose relevancy because of the benzos, because his daughter got involved with Andrew Tate. or even because he started dressing like a comic book villain - people could gloss over all of that. You could say he lost relevancy because he got got too close to Ben Shapiro and the neocons, and stopped having interesting thoughts about anything, arguably you could say that he lost relevancy because he got proven wrong, and his "clean your room" advice, while valuable, turned out to be insufficient, but the one thing you definitely cannot say is that he lost the opportunity to become a voice of reason in the world of education and psychology because he got "increasingly extreme". because a) like I mentioned before he's actually pretty mundane and boring, and b) we know for a fact that becoming extreme does not diminish your voice in education and psychology, which we can confirm by taking a quick glance at the absolute state of education and psychology.
This does raise an interesting question of what is the point of appealing to people who fancy themselves reasonable centrists? They'll do absolutely nothing to support you while you're sticking your neck out for them, and after you come under heavy fire for all your trouble, they'll call you an extremist anyway.
From my personal perspective, Jordan Peterson absolutely did lose relevancy because of the benzos. The core of Petersonism as I understood it was "if you act with agency and responsibility in your personal life, honour your tribe's gods, and display slightly more classical masculine virtue than that is normal for your society, you will be the big lobster." Big lobsters do not get themselves addicted to benzos.
I assume I am not alone in this.
Even if what he did go against the core of his message, most people are capable of understanding we're all human and we stumble sometimes. Aside from that, like I said, if he still had interesting things to say, most people would just gloss over it as time went by, they certainly look past far greater hypocrisies on a daily basis.
Also, I don't recall you expressing a lot of regard for Peterson to begin with, even before the Benzos.
I read Twelve Rules for Life and found it mildly useful. In the political context of the UK at the time, it was possible to recommend it to mentees in a way that it wasn't with other based/red-pilled/right-coded lifestyle advice. Given that I was happily married and professionally successful at the time Peterson went mainstream, I wasn't in the market for a full-on lifestyle guru relationship. But for young people who are looking for a secularish lifestyle guru, Peterson was one of the better options out there.
Even if you don't think the drugs shot Peterson's credibility, they definitely shot his workrate. You have to be prolific to survive in the online lifestyle guru industry.
I think the world would be a mildly better place if Peterson had not got addicted to benzos.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I honestly agree with this. Young men would claim in private conversations and anonymously on the internet that Jordan Peterson had saved their life, that his perspective was reasonable and important, and it was bad to cancel him.
But when leftists turned up to block his lectures or disrupt his events, these "supporters" were nowhere to be found. Presumably they got scared of the mob and turned around.
A similar problem happened to the Men's Right's crowd. There were people willing to speak out against feminism and be a voice for men who were failed by the system. These people were praised in their online circles, but ultimately acted alone. The support was only there as long as it carried no personal risk. Pushing your way into a lecture hall blocked by young women who threatened to put your face on social media was simply too much to ask. Showing public support was too big a risk.
But at that point, is it really support at all?
That was probably some part of it. I suspect, however, that maybe a bigger reason is that they just didn't give enough of a shit to show up. There are so many easier and more fun things to do with one's day than traveling somewhere to support some online guy who helped you improve your life.
More options
Context Copy link
Not the mob, but the juggernaut of state force behind them. Confrontations between left-wing mobs and right-wing defenders lead not only to injury but charges for the right-wing side. Even when the principal himself defended himself in a mild way, he was arrested.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link