site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 2023

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.

16
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Looks like @KulakRevolt got a shoutout from Scott for his (her? Whence the catgirl branding?) review of a certain novel. Putting it in a Twitter thread was kind of weird, but I thought the piece was fascinating. The comparisons to Tolstoy and Tolkien are not only viscerally upsetting but also remarkably accurate. There are a couple points I wanted to address, but first, a little background.

The year was 20XX. I was a broke 19-year-old, fresh out of my freshman year, scrounging for scholarship opportunities. My mother ran across one held by some sort of Ayn Rand fan club. Read Atlas Shrugged, write an essay, and receive a decent one-off award. My memory suggests it was guaranteed, but a quick search only finds the more sane framing of a contest. They do apparently provide the book, though. In the end, I didn't bother with the contest, since I got an actual job for the summer, thus avoiding any creative output. How ironic.

This brings me to my first point: Atlas Shrugged in schools. A book which inspires diehard followers to spend their time and money bringing its insights to the unenlightened masses. A book which, simultaneously, people must be paid to read. That contrast is enough to make Atlas Shrugged useless in the eyes of public schools; it would be enough even if elites were united in their admiration for Rand's morality. In a vacuum, the book is Objectively a train wreck. But its true potential is revealed only under a certain sort of engagement, one which is anathema to public-school demands for measurable outcomes.

I'm talking about immersion. It is the same flavor of suspension-of-disbelief which lets humans devour hundreds or thousands of pages about hobbits. He who delves wholeheartedly into the book, populates its barren vistas and soulless boardrooms with art-deco trappings or noir atmosphere, fills in the caricatures with the look and feel and essence distilled from decades of American cultural mythology--yea, he shall be rewarded. And when he comes up for air, it is not the clumsy plotting or the inhuman dialogue which comes with him. Verisimilitude has been outsourced to his own mind.

No matter the flesh in which the well-immersed reader clothes it, though, the philosophy of Rand's heroes remains unambiguous. It is the one area where she leaves no room for improvisation. When the converts gather for book club, they are envisioning different Roarks and Tooheys, different Taggarts and Stadlers and Galts. But they know Objectivism when they see it.

Her works are remembered not for their style but for their steel spine.

It's a bit terrifying to me how well @KulakRevolt took to Twitter, like a fish discovering water for the first time. One of his threads was effusively praised by Scott Adams during one of his livestreams, and he's also followed by Jordan Peterson of all people.

It's kind of funny how Kulak's Twitter poasting style resembles Kamil Galeev's. Maybe it's just ending the final sentences without a full stop that does it

Also funny pics to keep the attention.

Kulak is finally living up to the libertarian/objectivist ideal of ruthless optimization.

Galeev, by the way, is lately posting in Russian on the futility of developing unique products in peripheral countries:

[…] 3. The most complex, but also the most interesting case. The development is there, it works, it is really unique - and yet objectively not bad. If it were at the centre of the world system, it might even have a future. But it is taking place on the semi-periphery, so there is no future for it and there won't be one. It will remain unique.

The relationship between the centre and the periphery/semi-periphery is asymmetrical. Original solutions - technological, economic, or anything else - can emerge anywhere. The problem with the semi-periphery is not that original solutions don't emerge here, but that they don't scale.

The scaling happens in the centre. Here an original and promising solution may be seen, invested in, polished and brought to fruition. And then, in a package with other ready-made solutions, they export it to the semi-periphery. Which in most cases is the most grateful and solvent consumer for the producers of solutions from the centre

This is generally understandable. From the point of view of the managers and authorities in the semi-periphery, buying a ready-made package of solutions from the centre >>> creating their own solutions. They are, incidentally, almost always right: imported solutions are indeed better. Largely because the centre has the environment and infrastructure to bring them to fruition, while the semi-periphery does not. And because of this fact, it is doomed to perpetual catch-up, while its truly unique and truly good solutions are doomed to remain unique

Uniqueness = (In the best case scenario) inability to scale

His tweeting style is designed to scale. So is Kulak's. It's not unique but it gets the job done.

Kulak is finally living up to the libertarian/objectivist ideal of ruthless optimization.

Yeah, apparently he keeps a spreadsheet of all his tweets to track how well they do and he's reposting old ones now that he has more followers.

Galeev, by the way, is lately posting in Russian on the futility of developing unique products in peripheral countries:

Yes, and note that Kulak is writing about the US even though he's Canadian. He often writes about specific things that have no applicability to Canada at all, like the legality of advocating for revolution. This is a criminal offence in Canada.

Its ambiguous... I avow Marxist political economy ( but libertarian actual economics)...

So it'd be a struggle for them to actually prosecute me without defacto claiming that all marxist deserve jail time or worse.