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 -
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