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 -
Our current orthodoxies won’t last. They’re brain-dead. Nobody actually believes them. Hardly anyone’s life is improved by them. This moment is too inherently ridiculous to continue, and so it won’t. The people in charge know this, that’s why they’re hysterical and aggressive. They’re afraid. They’ve given up persuasion. They’re resorting to force. But it won’t work. When honest people say what’s true, calmly and without embarrassment, they become powerful. At the same time, the liars who’ve been trying to silence them shrink and they become weaker. That’s the iron law of the universe. True things prevail. Where can you still find Americans saying true things? There aren’t many places left, but there are some, and that’s enough. As long as you can hear the words, there is hope. See you soon.
It identifies who it's against just fine: "the people in charge". It's hardly an ambiguous label, and more than precise enough for the task at hand. It also identifies what it's for just fine: "Americans saying true things", the spaces that allow them to do so, and the opposition they form to "the people in charge".
At this stage, what more is necessary?
Isn't it a bit ambiguous? Are the people in charge the Biden Administration colluding with Corrupt Corporatist CEOs? Is it the diffuse consensus of the cathedral that's in charge? Or is it a few hidden puppetmasters pulling the strings? People who believe all three love tucker's statement, despite them being contradictory. And what are they doing wrong - too much welfare, or too little welfare (for the white working class)? Transing the kids? Replacing us with browns? Etc
It's not ambiguous at all to his intended audience.
It's basically the final paragraph of @FCfromSSC's reply below.
More options
Context Copy link
These statements do not appear terribly contradictory to me. If the biden administration is colluding with corrupt corporatist CEOs, why would they be doing that if it weren't for the diffuse consensus of the cathedral? How do either of those preclude a few hidden puppet-masters pulling strings?
It seems obvious to me that all three of your statements are true. There are definately puppet-masters pulling strings, there is definately a diffuse cathedral consensus, and there is definately collusion between the Biden administration and corrupt corporatist CEOs. Blue Tribe is vast and highly complex, comprising at least several dozen million people, many of them from the upper strata of society. Why would its workings be reducible to a single story? If we tried to describe the politics of renaissance Italy, would it be reducible to a binary "it's the medicis" or "it's the doge"?
If you want to reduce it down to a single cause, you have to get really, really general: It's Enlightenment ideology doing what it always does.
Again, lots of things.
If tucker gave a specific answer encapsulated into a sentence or two, it would either be incomprehensible to a general audience, or so vague as to be meaningless. Either way, I suspect you'd object to any such simplification as being excessively reductive.
What he actually does is what Reds are increasingly doing: making a statement in favor of status-independence from the Blue Tribe. There's plenty of time to drill down to specifics, but first we must agree that we are not going to grant Blue lies power over our thinking any longer. Blue status attacks are flatly illegitimate, and their methods of enforcing conformity must be rejected. That's the start of overthrowing their order: recognizing the demand for consent, and refusing to grant it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link