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 -
It's that time of year again: The Masters, my favourite dose of noblesse oblige
I've seen it lamented numerous times here and elsewhere of the decline of noblesse oblige. I chalk it up to the internationalization of finance and wealth and the simultaneous decline in nationalism: the peers of the ultra-wealthy are the ultra-wealthy of other countries, not their neighbours or countrymen who they generally try to spend as little time as possible in the company of. God forbid that they might actually have to mix with the unwashed masses. Before you were obliged to in an attempt to forestall some peasant revolt from burning your estates, but now you've got private security defending all fourteen of your mansions, so what would really be the harm even if you lost one?
But at least in Augusta, Georgia there's some vestige of that lost spirit. Every year the Masters is held at the ultra-exclusive Augusta National Country Club, arguably the most prestigious golf tournament (give or take The Open) and the pinnacle of achievement of one of the hobbies of the elites. And every year the Masters goes overboard in creating a prestigious, elevated, and somewhat stiffly artificial environment. No expense is spared, no detail overlooked: the fairways are painted a verdant green, Rae's Creek is dyed its iconic dark blue, and the telecast features a chorus of (not-actually-present) birds so you can't hear the highway traffic. It's pure spectacle, and a treat to watch.
And you can watch it. Rather than hiking ticket prices to the eye-watering levels the open market would demand, the tournament distributes tickets via lottery ($140 for a day ticket, but if they hit the retail market they usually go for multiple thousands). And once you're on-site, the costs for food and drink are almost cartoonishly inexpensive. Oh, you couldn't secure tickets or are too far away? Well they built maybe the single-best website for watching sports: an infinitely customizable setup where you can watch whichever players or holes you wish. I've never used the app for mobile but people rave about it as well. These are both free of charge and have no region locks, and feature not one single advertisement or imposition upon the watcher. It's sporting entertainment at its ultimate best, built not for profit but purely for the prestige of being able to give it to the masses.
I would need more evidence to believe that noblesse oblige has actually declined compared to fedual or industrial revolution times, or even compared to say the 1950s. It is not like rich people do not give money for charitable purposes these days. You might be right, you might be wrong, but in either case I think that we would need to look at some data before deciding whether noblesse oblige has actually declined. For all I know, it might be stronger than ever these days.
Oh, they give money to charity.
Charities are their primary vessels for influence laundering and a literal cancer on society.
Any chance at real reform must focus on preventing international 'charitable' organisations from spreading influence in your country, and preventing such idealistic social tumours from being created in your own land.
Could you summarize that piece?
Yeah, I want to know what motte-and-bailey it uses, but I don't care enough to suffer through it.
Having read it, as far as I could see it doesn't use motte-and-bailey arguments, it highlights a real problem (large caritative funds are free money for a class of professional managers to invest in whatever their own pet causes are, uncoupled from any requirement of being efficient, and sometimes clearly against the intentions of individuals who provided the initial capital). The problem with the article imo is how blunt and unsophisticated the author's solution is, pretty much "just ban them". I haven't read anything else on this blog or from this author so perhaps he does not care about setting dark precedents and preserving liberalism. To those of us who do, a more elegant solution to aligning incentives and ensuring such entities either don't spring up or aren't hijacked, perhaps a more social than political solution, would be a lot more palatable.
No, that’s pretty much what I had in mind. Maybe “Bailey” isn’t as accurate as “Strawman.” He’s attacking the worst case for charities—trusts that represent the interests of an entrenched PMC—and damning the whole field accordingly.
I went ahead and read it. Even in his just-so story, the Bill Foundation spends $3M on “handshake worthy causes” even as the globalists (coincidentally all women) start to take hold. Assuming everything after the first year is meant to be rubbish, since the author namedrops Soros, the foundation still spent most of its money on causes approved by the founder!
Of course, to Moldbug fans, this is temporary, and Cthulhu will only make the balance worse. So the author concludes caritas delenda est. Don’t bother building something, not if the leftists will benefit from it. Ford’s trust send some money to racial grievance studies? Can’t have shit in Detroit.
As an aside, Mr. Smoke misses the part where the Ford Foundation was set up by Edsel Ford, son of the rather more famous Henry. It spent its first decade funding hospitals and museums and, conveniently, avoiding a 70% inheritance tax. After the war, it pivoted to a stance of global philanthropy. I have to wonder if the author thinks it was A-OK up till that point.
I get the impression that Mr. Smoke has a very low tolerance for leftism. We can’t really put a number on that, because all his real-world examples are assumed rather than proven worthless. A charity has “Muslim” in the name; surely it provides no value other than sucking welfare?
All in all—abysmal article. 3/10.
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
More options
Context Copy link