site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 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.

15
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

vastly poorer, shittier, more corrupt, more violent countries don't have the problems that the above article notes exist in the Los Angeles metro.

Because they're not rich enough to (1) afford ubiquitous personal car transportation, (2) isolate themselves from the effects of luxury beliefs like "we should prioritize the feelings and welfare of criminals over having orderly public places"

Los Angeles is the second city of the richest country on earth. The median income in Los Angeles is $70,000 a year.

Right, rich enough to afford personal cars for most people, and luxury beliefs allying the guilty-feeling, effeminized elites and the underclasses.

isolate themselves from the effects of luxury beliefs like "we should prioritize the feelings and welfare of criminals over having orderly public places"

This makes a lot of sense, but I know a number of residents of SF, Oakland and other places like that, who aren't in any way rich enough to avoid the effects of the luxury beliefs, and they still largely support the policies that led to them. I mean, they're certainly not happy about people pooping on the streets or open drug markets, not to mention unending car breakins and other criminality, but somehow they never make the conclusion the policies they support are responsible for it. They just think it's "wrong Socialism" and as soon as they figure out how to make "true Socialism, that has never been tried" - which is right around the corner, we only need to tweak a couple of things and spend a couple of billions more - and it all will be fixed.

I guess my question is where do these magical beliefs come from? They seem to be ubiquitous among Reddit users but also white collar progressives in general. I'd like to blame midwit tier intelligence, but I don't think that's it. In fact, I would guess that intelligence and socialist beliefs are positively correlated.

Why is socialist worldview so appealing, even when (or especially when) it fails time and time again? And why is the more practical worldview (that people respond to incentives) so looked down upon?

This will not be a great post because I'm exhausted today, but I remember reading an author who coined the (awkward) term "indiscriminateness" to describe the fundamental principle that led to the disconnect you describe. This principle has become a cardinal virtue in our society.

The idea is that judging someone is about the worst thing you can do. You can't disparage train shitters and train masturbators as "scum" or "bad people" or "degenerate" or even "a public nuisance" because that would be cast judgement on their actions or character. And you know who does that? The hated and reviled Outgroup! Not only are you an ignorant person for negatively judging someone, but you even sound like one of The Bad Guys. And so you will do increasing complex mental gymnastics to explain Why Some People Are Like That, continue to invent ever more complex epicycles to explain social decay.

The idea is that judging someone is about the worst thing you can do.

This can't be how they operate. They are very eager to judge racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, or even just people who are insufficiently zealous about combating the aforementioned groups. They have no problem judging the character of people they consider to be their outgroup.

Which, you basically acknowledge at much. But you have to take the next obvious implication of that, which is that "judging someone is the worst thing you can do" can't be an accurate model of their psychology.

It actually rings true to me, because I guess it's how I thought for a bit. And it rears its head even in interpersonal affairs. Somewhere during my youth it got instilled in me that being judgmental was an inherently negative trait - a sentiment I attribute entirely to the pop dissemination of therapy talk.

I remember expressing to a friend my concern over some obviously bad and harmful decisions they were making, and was defensively accused of being judgmental with a real finger-wagging tone. A couple other instances of things like that eventually broke the spell, but god knows why I didn't see the absurdity of that thinking earlier.

Yes, you're right. The common thread in your examples though is that the Xphobes and Xists are all deficient in the virtue of indiscriminateness. They are guilty of some form of judgment against groups that are deemed "oppressed," and (the thinking goes) those groups wouldn't be oppressed if only the Xists and Xphobes would embrace indiscriminateness. Maybe it's better to use one of their own slogans to sum up their beliefs. I've heard some of them say that they will "tolerate anything except for intolerance." So I should qualify my above comment by saying that violations of the principle of indiscriminateness are permissible only in order to further spread the principle itself.

That's definitely a justification used a lot, but I think you were right in your first post and those people are just lying to themselves and othering their outgroup so hard they no longer register as 'people'. They were perfectly happy to judge right wingers who don't 'hate' minorities - Kavanaugh, Romney, Rogan and so on.

I had indiscriminateness beaten into me as a child by my father, who was a devout Christian - None may judge but God and all that. I think I was about 12 or 13 when I noticed how many people we knew who claimed to be non-judgemental but actually judged the shit out of people all the time. I brought this up with my dad, who smirked that I was now judging them, so who was I to talk? To which I replied, almost in despair, that that was exactly my point. Nobody is non judgemental, only God could be, because only God can know things without evaluating them first. He actually listened, thank goodness.