site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   37941 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can Conservatism assimilate the Dissident Right?

Recently Matt Walsh, conservative commentator from the Daily Wire, had a monologue on white identity that was basically word-for-word pulled from DR standard fare.

Conservatives have long used the "Democrats are the Real Racists" retort, which is an easy target for the DR to mock and differentiate itself from conservatism with a more radical viewpoint that has a stronger force of truth. Only very recently has "anti-white" migrated from DR to Conservative lexicon in its denunciations of progressivism. But this clip goes much further than both and does seem to indicate a sliding window on acceptable thought around race within the Conservative movement. It starts with rhetoric that you've probably heard from conservatives before, but it moves into territory that you do not see from conservatives, and this is clearly a scripted monologue rather than off-the-cuff comment. The end of the clip explains:

Black and brown can and should have a sense of racial identity, white must not- I mean that's the rule. It's why segregation can be promoted and instated as policy but only to give non-whites their special spaces, never to do the same for whites. Because to do the same would be to acknowledge the existence of white people as a group and to give that group permission to care about its own wellbeing.

The "Democrats are the Real Racists" (DR3) rhetoric is essentially a complaint of progressive hypocrisy in an effort to discredit progressive concern over racial issues and progressivism's own crypto race-essentialism which Hlynka equates with the DR.

Conservatism has traditionally used progressive hypocrisy on race in order to denounce progressive racial advocacy. The DR uses progressive hypocrisy over race to advocate for white identity. But I think Walsh's monologue here indicates a potential conservative assimilation of the DR position. It could be said that Walsh does not directly endorse white identity, but he describes it in positive terms that are exactly what you would read within the DR. His monologue here is clearly more in the DR ethos of using progressive framing of racial conflict in order to provide rational justification for white identity: "... Because to do the same would be to acknowledge the existence of white people as a group and to give that group permission to care about its own wellbeing" is essentially an endorsement of white identity rather than a typical conservative denunciation of racial identity altogether.

Particularly in the past 15 years, if you were a young conservative or libertarian or something and basically came to the conclusions of Matt Walsh without hearing those words ever be said by anyone in the conservative establishment, where would you gravitate to? The circles where you'll be handed Culture of Critique, circles where Nietzsche is looked to rather than John Locke or Milton Friedman, circles where WW-II and Holocaust Revisionism that would make a conservative faint is conventional wisdom.

It's possible, and potentially a threat to the DR, if Conservative Inc were able to assimilate an overtly pro-white platform into its rhetoric and ideology. One thing that is inseparable from identity, and is the primary reason why white identity has been taboo since the end of the war, is the friend and enemy distinction. If the Daily Wire for example were able to be the outlet for pro-white inclinations in the conservative movement, then it would also have much greater power in framing the friend and the enemy with the traditional shibboleths rather than losing those people to radicalization. Think of Rush Limbaugh, who could constantly lambast the Drive By Media and Hollywood to build credibility in order to ultimately keep everyone on the reservation.

It's not sustainable for the Conservative movement to completely ignore and denounce white identity. They have to acknowledge it eventually if they want to avoid being eclipsed by a more radical movement that offers that bundled with a lot more radical thinking. They do need to figure out how to assimilate white identity and advocacy with conservatism, and if they do that effectively then the DR is going to lose an important monopoly which has driven many to that sphere. Walsh's monologue here is an indication that this is likely going to happen.

I think the more pertinent question is should we want to?

What do the woke-contrarians/dissident-right bring have to offer that's worth the risk of lowering our memetic defenses to bring them in?

An answer to the woke that's not "Let's keep retreating and maybe eventually they'll be satisfied".

There are other answers that do the same though.

I haven't seen one. Actual equality under the law doesn't work; the woke side will always win by demonstrating blacks are worse off and playing on sense of justice and sympathy to demand preferential treatment.

There's a great deal more that conservatives could try doing before they resort to "actually, we need to think about ourselves as White people". They seem reluctant to stoop to the tactics of their enemies, but if they did, I don't think it's obvious they would still lose.

"Actually, we need to think about ourselves as White people" IS stooping to the tactics of their enemies.

Right, I should clarify. When I say tactics, I mean that which is roughly agnostic of ideology. Conservatives could, for example, ban that which they dislike without changing what they believe. For example, the New College thing in Florida where they put aligned people on the board of a progressive college. There has been long discussion about the "Long March on the Institutions", this is just a more blatant version of that.

Building race-aligned coalitions is also tactics. The New College thing is going nowhere anyway; the left knows all about the long march and they're not going to let it happen to them.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats