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 -
Richard Hanania is a man whom I do not always agree with but do appreciate for successfully pissing off people both on the left and the right. The ability to piss off people from both of those groups is, in my opinion, generally correlated with being right about things.
Well, Hanania has allegedly been linked to a pseudonym. The allegation is that about 10 years ago, he was routinely saying taboo things about race and gender issues under the name "Richard Hoste".
Some quotes:
It's nothing very shocking for those of us who read dissident right stuff, and it's not even really that far away from Hanania's typical under-his-birth-name writing. But it may be a bridge too far for much of the more mainstream audience.
What I wonder is, which way shall Hanania go?
Own it, say "yes I am Richard Hoste and I did write those things"? He would gain praise from some people for honesty, but he would also stand probably a pretty good chance of losing book deals, interviews with some mainstream figures, and so on.
Deny deny deny?
Ignore it?
I think that it is an interesting case study, the attempted take down of one of the more famous examples of what is now a pretty common sort of political writer: the Substacker whose views are just controversial and taboo enough to have a lot of appeal for non-mainstream audiences but are not so far into tabooness, in content and/or tone, to get the author branded a full-on thought-criminal.
Let he who has never anonymously posted edgelord comments on the internet cast the first stone. I honestly can't imagine how dull and intellectually lazy one would have to be to never once let a single cancellation-worthy thought enter their mind. In the early 2010s there was even less of a barrier between thinking something and posting it anonymously on the internet. Not everyone was reading Moldbug back then. You didn't expect the thought police to be around every corner.
The idea of rationalism being an "off-ramp from extremism" has been around for some time. This article is not strong Bayesian evidence of anything, even assuming that it's true (It probably is. Hanania would have denied it immediately if it was false, and he's been radio silent on Twitter since the article dropped). Conservation of expected evidence; you should have assumed that anyone who says the things that Hanania says publicly under his real name also has stronger beliefs that he doesn't say. The quoted material sounds like exactly what you would get if you prompted a non-RLHFed LLM with the phrase "Richard Hanania under fire after the following controversial statements resurfaced:".
Ignoring it is the best option here. Anyone with a brain knew that there was a high probability that he believes (or believed) things like this. What the article does is make these things salient and give activists a pretext to attack Hanania and his associates. If he ignores it completely he can maintain plausible deniability.
Maybe this is one of those generational differences. (IE those who grew up with the internet vs those who didn't) But to me there is a vast gulf between a thought entering your mind and committing that thought to the public record. As the old saw goes, don't put anything in writing that you wouldn't have read at your funeral.
I have a sudden urge to attend a 4channers funeral.
More seriously, yeah it's probably generational. If the internet took off during the dumbest part of your adolescence and young adulthood, it would probably be unfair to expect all that much restraint and wisdom from you.
The other issue is - do you seriously believe you wouldn't get cancelled for the stuff you post here, if you lived around or worked for the blue tribe?
The weird thing is, the kind of stuff that people typically get cancelled for is usually not that different from things I occasionally hear boomers and older people say in person, but which would get you banned from almost any online platform. The standards for what's acceptable in person seem to be much more relaxed than what is acceptable online, at least when it comes to certain topics. I suppose the opposite is true when it comes to swearing and talking about sex. But certain opinions which are actually quite common (especially those related to transgenderism) have been utterly tabooed by young people online.
This is why I find some of these cancellations so confusing. People aren't just getting cancelled for saying edgy stuff when they were anonymous teenagers. They're getting cancelled for stuff that is well within the Overton window if you step outside the terminally online bubble.
For example, try asking anyone over 40 whether transwomen are women. Few would say they are. But you say this on almost any social media, and they'll react as though you're some kind of extremist. Or ask someone over 60 what they think of gay marriage.
I think that the kind of people who hold to dogmatic political ideologies also tend to be the kind of people who don't do much mingling with strangers in real life, at least not anywhere that isn't pre-selected to be mostly filled by people who agree with them.
Also, in real life one can see the person one is arguing with and most of time time realize that they do not fit your worst stereotypes of what people "on the other side" are like, which naturally tends to de-escalate conflict.
Also, in real life being loudly dogmatic about politics can lead to unpleasant consequences ranging anywhere from being viewed as a buzzkill all the way up to possible violence, so most people probably have a natural tendency to avoid getting into dogmatic political debates with strangers in real life if possible.
The above has to do with talking to strangers. When it comes to talking with people one already knows, people have even more reason to not get into vicious political disagreements.
On the other hand, people who know each other well in person often have an emotional desire to change each others' minds about things they disagree deeply on, and generally also feel like they can trust the debate to not spill over into violence, so sometimes people who know each other in person are actually emotionally incentivized to get into vicious political disagreements more than they would with strangers.
The internet collapses space. When you go online anywhere in the world, you are effectively stepping into an American university campus and required on pain of cancellation to comport yourself accordingly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
deleted
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link