site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33047 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 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.

That definition of "Far Right" is strict, and it's difficult to extract value from it. If you loosen your definition of it ever-so-slightly and you start getting christian nationalists/christian technocrats/crypto statists and evangelicals, the path to "Far Right" takeover becomes much clearer.

Honestly it seems like hardcore Christians and crypto-fascists get along ok but want the DR to stop being so openly white nationalist.

If you were to ask me if it was white nationalism, anti-semitics, or the sinophiles being the issue that keeps the group from being cohesive, it's most certainly the sinophiles.

Christians and White nationalists are many things, but if/(when?) they realize the extent to which sinophilia pervades the cryptos, it will be difficult to keep them unified.

No.

deleted

If you're asking specifically about more information on my thoughts on the pervasiveness of sinophilia in cryptostatism, I suggest reading Nick Land's works. His CCRU prophecies are still available, and though using esoteric diction and grammar, relatively approachable.

In fact, this maps exactly onto the trinity NRX tried to make happen.

Parvini being big on Elite Theory knows that he needs an ascending elite if change is ever to happen, and I would argue technocapitalist are the best situated to challenge managerial rule, provided they can be organized.

I'm iffy on Christianity as an organizing ideology if I'm honest, but it can be surprisingly potent.

Yes to ascending elite, however I am skeptical of technocapital given that it was unable to counter the managerial elite to begin with, and was present in western society, albeit in another form, before them.

aren't most technocapitalists liberals?

Liberal is a very broad term. Wasn't Henry ford a liberal too, a liberal techno capitalist of the time?

An Ascending Elite would probably be the best bet if the main parties would want the US to be/stay independent. There's still an absurd amount of untapped nationalist fervor, and R's gains with minorities showed that most people are still not willing to hop on Popper's wild ride. (That could, perhaps, stem from the terrible messaging of the Hillary 2016 campaign being wildly self-defeating)

Long-term, Christianity is a losing proposition, I agree there, but they only need to hold off long enough for their policies to get in place. Since most Christians are older, own land, have kids, the amount of relative power they have over the country versus the new-age atheists is insane. As such, appealing to older, "family values" and general christian sensibilities makes intuitive sense.

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