site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   31571 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 22, 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.

10
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The banality of evil refers to those who participate in some way in doing evil, rather than those who simply are aware of evil deeds but do nothing to stop them.

And further the reason it is linked to Nazi Germany is because such a large segment of the population, for one reason or another, eventually became supporters of the Nazi regime. Maybe not all enthusiastically so, but enough to be regarded as supporters of Nazi policy.

Opinion poll data from the immediate post-war years confirm the limited impact of Allied efforts. In October 1946, when the Nuremberg Trial ended, only 6 per cent of Germans were willing to admit that they thought it had been 'unfair', but four years later one in three took this view. That they felt this way should come as no surprise, since throughout the years 1945-49 a consistent majority of Germans believed that 'Nazism was a good idea, badly applied'. In November 1946, 37 per cent of Germans questioned in a survey of the American zone took the view that 'the extermination of the Jews and Poles and other non-Aryans was necessary for the security of Germans'.

Source

No, the reason it is linked to Nazi Germany is because the term originated in Hannah Arendt's book on the trial of Adolph Eichmann, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil

The review of the film in question is linking it to Nazi Germany as a whole, not Eichmann specifically.

Right. Because Eichmann was a high Nazi official, and Arent used him as an example of a more general phenomenon.

Yes, the general phenomenon that a large segment of the population in Nazi Germany came to support the regime for one reason or another. I'm not sure we really disagree?

No, because supporting the regime for one reason or another is not the same as participating in genocide. Arendt AFAIK did not opine one way or the other in that book on the causes or nature of popular support for the regime, nor does it sound like the movie does, either.

Sure, I probably participate by buying cheaper clothing from Xingjian cotton. I also work for international company, so I am sure that I am making products that help some really nasty people do some really nasty stuff with said product. I also like eating meat, which of course makes me a banally evil monster in eyes of many people. Take your pick of Moloch-like idea that I profit from or participate in and I am by definition banally evil person.

But that is not what Arendt meant by the term.

I think she did. People only put nazism on some pedestal of evil, so they think that Arendt had some incredible insight. In fact it is just another version of moral outrage porn. In above example I admitted that I am absolutely fine with eating meat, I have only smile for my butcher. Of course many people would say that I am evil, while I am just going about my day not thinking twice about it. There are people in US army devising WW3 plans for nuclear holocaust or who are one cog in the machine of identifying and striking targets for Predator drones including civilians. Then they go home, hug their children and do whatever.

Arend's insight is absolutely useless. For instance I think that doctors who transition children are absolute scum, I am sure that many of them are monsters and I think the same about every single person working in child transition clinic. Some conservatives think the same about about abortions. And now what, how should one act upon this knowledge of banally evil people doing their evil deeds while thinking about themselves as perfectly normal people? Absolutely nothing except maybe being more active in next elections and of course acting properly outraged when the society finally permits it.

  1. She absolutely did NOT mean it to refer to bystanders who did nothing, because she was not seeking to explain the behaviors of bystanders, but rather only the behavior of government officials who implemented the policy.

  2. They think that Arendt had some incredible insight because, in 1963, it was in fact a unique and controversial insight.

  3. It is the exact opposite of outrage porn; in fact, Arendt was criticized at the time for not being sufficiently outraged. Her entire thesis was that Eichmann was not "a monster" and was not even particularly anti-Semitic.

For instance I think that doctors who transition children are absolute scum,

If so, then they are not an example of the banality of evil. They are an example of regular old evil. The banality of evil would refer more to the insurance adjuster who approves the doctor's insurance claim.

And now what, how should one act upon this knowledge

Well, if you are an insurance adjuster, you quit your job.

She absolutely did NOT mean it to refer to bystanders who did nothing, because she was not seeking to explain the behaviors of bystanders, but rather only the behavior of government officials who implemented the policy.

Sure, nobody is talking about doing nothing, we are talking about people supporting 3rd Reich in one way or another. Which is how this thread started.

They think that Arendt had some incredible insight because, in 1963, it was in fact a unique and controversial insight.

I am with you on this. People fetishize Nazism as somehow unique and Arendt kind of ruined the party, I am not dissing her - I am dissing people who need her.

It is the exact opposite of outrage porn; in fact, Arendt was criticized at the time for not being sufficiently outraged. Her entire thesis was that Eichmann was not "a monster" and was not even particularly anti-Semitic.

Here I did not mean Arendt's particular schtick, but how it is used now: Ah, you are not particularly hardcore Nazi, you are just banally evil so I can still punch you. I meant this.

If so, then they are not an example of the banality of evil. They are an example of regular old evil.

Doctors are only one cog in the machine that goes from lawmakers, through Eichmann style beurocrats interpreting said laws, through insurance companies, hospital management, through psychiatrists, receptionists and so forth. The surgeon who is cutting the organs in fact has quite a good excuse doing what he does, he has mountain of exculpatory paperwork to freely do what he is gonna do. In fact if the doctor would refuse in some fit of consciousness, he or she would probably suffer severe career consequences. How is he evil in the old sense? He is law abiding citizen, respected even.

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