site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 2022

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.

40
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I read something today which I have long thought deep down, but hadn’t really seen spelled out elsewhere.

Namely, the censoring done by the liberal left, while there, is rather mild in the scheme of things and is probably much less than the same left would be censored by the people it currently censors if that group was in power.

The quote that brought it to my mind was from here, on Richard Hannania’s substack. After a post discussing being banned by Twitter, he drops this at the end of the article.

The right-wing whining in particular gets to me, and another motivation here is I don’t want to end up like my friends… I don’t feel particularly oppressed by leftists. They give me a lot more free speech than I would give them if the tables were turned. If I owned Twitter, I wouldn’t let feminists, trans activists, or socialists post. Why should I? They’re wrong about everything and bad for society. Twitter is a company that is overwhelmingly liberal, and I’m actually impressed they let me get away with the things I’ve been saying for this long.

https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/saying-goodbye-to-twitter

The attitude of censoring opponents seemed to have crystallized for the left around 2016, where I distinctly remember the conversation centering around the limits of tolerating intolerant ideologies. (Which seems to have become fully settled by now, interesting to observe an ideological movement update in real time in that way).

Does Hannania have a point here? Is the issue that the right takes offense with censorship itself, or would the right if it actually gained back power censor in a much more strict and comprehensive way?

He's mostly correct. It annoys me to see tech leaders hauled before Congress to get lectured about what a nice platform they have except for all that excessive free speech, and how bad it would be for something to happen to it if they don't fix the excesses themselves ... but isn't essentially the story behind the Hays Code? The Comics Code? The Hollywood Blacklist?? I suspect that most current "supporters" of free speech are just fair-weather friends who would be more than happy to reverse their support and double their zeal, if only they were the ones in charge.

But the other reason I have that sad suspicion about much of the right is simple induction from the sad certainty about the reversal much of the left has already made. It was so much nicer when I innocently assumed that everybody opposed the Hollywood Blacklist because we were all actually pro-free-speech and anti-blacklist, not pro-Communist. To be fair to the right, their future betrayal is still merely hypothetical. Maybe it's not just wishful thinking to imagine that some actually learned something.

"Surely it is better that the immoral learn morality through adversity than that the moral forget morality in prosperity."

Isaac Asimov character, "Robots and Empire"

I think the problem is it comes down to the amount of people being censored. The lefts desire seems to be to want to censor 50% of the population maybe more. I don’t believe this is the same as communists which was a small part of the population. We were also at war with communists at the time. Actual shooting war almost the entire time. And it’s an I’ll ideology that’s has proven itself to be disastrous to mankind.

The problem today is now 50% of the population wants to censor the other 50% of the population and now EVERYTHING is literally fighting Nazis. I think the difference is sometimes you are actually literally fighting Nazis (and I include communists in this too) and sometimes you are fighting people debating scientific papers (masks, vaccine studies) and equating these people as being the equivalent of literally Hitler. We all agree with murdering and censoring Hitler. The difference today is everyone who disagrees with you literally Hitler because they looked at some studies and don’t think there is a reason for them to wear a masks?

We all agree with murdering and censoring Hitler.

Consensus-building?

For actual Hitler, deposing (or assassinating maybe) before he starts the war, certainly a targeted strike after he starts it, and strong and vigorous argumentation against as soon as his strugglefesto gets published?

Sure that’s consensus building. Point I was making similar to Hannania is everyone (almost everyone believes) in some repression of a great bad. Hitler I’m assuming to 98% of Americans is that great bad. The comic book villain whose sole pleasure of tormenting humans. And the closest real example of someone with near universal support as the great bad.

Sure most great bads actually have large support basis. Darth Maul ended up being the defender of planets being abused by the Capitol and the Star Wars cartoons and sort of a good guy.