site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 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.

8
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I must have missed the segment of the Pauline letters that commanded blowing up your enemies.

To my knowledge Ted Kaczynski was not a Christian. If I am wrong, someone please correct me. Nonetheless, he fought the fight he believed in, he finished his race, and to the best of my knowledge he kept the faith (a faith of his own invention, with it's holy text being Industrial Society and Its Future) until the end.

he fought the fight he believed in, he finished his race, and to the best of my knowledge he kept the faith

So, presumably, did many Islamic State fighters. I don't think it makes them worthy of respect if their fight was conducted abhorrently and directed towards awful ends.

It should, because if you don't respect someone you're likely to underestimate them, or otherwise misunderstand them, and so be more likely to fail when combatting them (or when trying to reach a peaceful modus vivendi).

He was a paranoid schitzophrenic who murdered innocent people. He's hardly worth lionizing.

Having read his manifesto, I find it hard to imagine a schizophrenic could write that lucidly, and express his points so clearly and concisely. I find him much more lucid, direct and less prone to digression than e.g. Curtis Yarvin or Eliezer Yudkowsky. His defense attorney thought that pleading insanity was his best chance, but he refused to do so, despite knowing full well he'd probably be treated better in an institution than in a prison. You think he shouldn't be lionized, fair enough, but I don't think there's good evidence to suggest he was a madman.

Paranoid schitzophrenia was the official diagnosis of the psychiatrist who interviewed him post-arrest.

ETA Sourcing: https://harbor.klnpa.org/california/islandora/object/cali%3A1205

Fair enough, but see also Wikipedia:

Forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz said Kaczynski was not psychotic but had a schizoid or schizotypal personality disorder.[119] In his 2010 book Technological Slavery, Kaczynski said that two prison psychologists who visited him frequently for four years told him they saw no indication that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and the diagnosis was "ridiculous" and a "political diagnosis".[120] Some contemporary authors suggested that multiple people, most notably Kaczynski's brother and mother, purposely spread the image of Kaczynski as mentally ill with the aim to save him from execution.[121]

It seems like a controversial diagnosis even within the psychiatric community. I'd say either he wasn't schizophrenic, or he's the most lucid and clear-minded schizophrenic in the history of the diagnosis.

Doesn’t he have an IQ of like 183? Seems like a relevant variable to that last bit.

167, per the New York Times's obituary.

I mean, that’s still really, really high, and the sort of thing that seems relevant to him being oddly clear minded for a schizophrenic.

More comments

As so often happens, you're both right.

Bingo,

There's nothing inherently contradictory about being a brilliant writer and also being a paranoid schitzophrenic or murderer.