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 -
As some are already aware, Huff Po is attempting to cancel the controversial writer/pundit Richard Hanania over some far-right posts he wrote a decade ago under an alias, which has been tied to his real identity. This coincides with his release of his book by Harper Collins, with the intent to have the publisher cancel it. v
The Huffington Post article: https://archive.is/YbIpz
(it would have been a 'boss move' had Elon suspended Huff Po account over this, declaring 'cancel culture is over'. )
There is already a prediction market about it, with 80 percent 'yes' it will be published
https://manifold.markets/AnonPlz/will-harper-collins-publish-richard
I agree overall though that nothing bad will happen to him, as I discuss here on my own blog post. First, cancellation does not work that well on academics/pundits as it does on other professions/careers (such as tenure). Even top CEOs are easier to cancel than pundits. Second, the left's credibility has been eroded in recent years due to hoxes , fake news, and 'mission creep' (when everyone is a racist or other bad person, the term loses its meaning/potency).
I think the fine folks over at the Huffington Post had a pretty clear goal in mind. Fortify the media landscape and the Overton Window. Make noise about Hanania and then attempt to squeeze him out behind the scenes through people like Bari Weiss and Ben Shapiro before he is given any traction by them.
As far as I can remember there was a similar gambit against Stephan Molyneux after Dave Rubin decided on having a conversation with him. To that end I'd put my tinfoil hat on and say that the mainstream elements had already decided that this was something that needed to be done prior to the 'dox' thing of Hanania being published.
I think the idea of a 'cancellation' is kind of retarded without properly addressing who is functionally doing the cancelling. Yes, lib/left/progressives hate guys like Hanania. They have already 'cancelled him' by never associating with him and doing everything they can to make him fail. Like, this was always the case. So who is actually cancelling Hanania now and from what? If it's not Musk banning him off twitter, what is actually going on?
Well, it seems simple, now Hanania will never ever be on Joe Rogan or any show that exists in a mainstream sphere of center/right discourse. I.e. the Daily Wire and any affiliates. If you want in with the mainstream right wing grift you can't freely associate with Hanania anymore.
Or maybe that was always the case and now it's just official.
The other possibility is that Hanania is used as a sort of sanctioned dissident to divert the libertarian to dissident right pipeline back to "individualist libertarianism" but with more racism.
HBD denial among libertarians is probably the leading cause for that pipeline, Hanania could be useful for the establishment by integrating it with libertarianism. I think it's his Occidental Observer associations that are a bridge too far, though.
Pipeline from libertarianism to fascism?
I can understand it.
I can understand someone who wants to be radical and "edgy", and the edgiest thing possible (and still respectable among his peers) was putting up poster of Ayn Rand. Times move, Overton windows moves too, and othere, edgier things become salonfahig. Portrait of Ayn Rand goes down, portrait of Adolf Hitler comes up.
I can understand someone who hates, really hates leftists and communists (for whatever definiton of "left" and "communism" he holds), and becomes a libertarian because it was the most anti-communist movement around. Then, when harder things come up, he joins too.
I can understand someone totally cynical and disilusioned, someone who freed himself from any delusions about "morals" "human rights" or "value of human life" and grokked that only might is right and only law is law of tooth and claw, but is highly optimistic about himself, someone who is certain that in fascist regime he will not end as ordinary disposable piece of goosestepping meat, but join the movement early, support the right side, play the right cards and rise high in the party hierarchy.
I cannot understand someone who ever sincerely held freedom as value, whether idealistically as freedom for all mankind or pragmatically as freedom for himself, who decided that the best life is total subjection to some self proclaimed "great leader".
Classical liberals had no problems integrating beliefs in race and HBD (far harder than even the most edgy 4channer today) with dedication to liberty. No reason why modern people can not manage it too.
Because this is where libertarianism inevitably ends up anyway. There is a reason that every attempt to imagine a libertarian utopia ends up adding in an all-powerful world council guaranteeing exit rights, education rights and so on. For example, see Scott’s Archipelago. If you value freedom for the sake of building a stable culture that you admire, that’s not good! If you want the freedom to live in a community that’s not full of opioid addicts, that’s not good either. Freedom is not a values-neutral proposition, it smuggles in a lot of other stuff.
And of course in practice a sufficiently powerful world policeman (cough, America) ends up doing all sorts of selfish/ideological things too, because that’s what happens when you give lots of power to actual human beings.
It’s wholly possible to be someone who cares about freedom, consider the likelihood that you will be left alone by any given Guarantor of World Rights, and instead sign up with a Great Leader who is badly inclined towards freedom in general but whose practical preferences are vaguely matched with yours.
Of course, you can bite the bullet and go with full anarchy instead, then get ruled by whichever gang lord rises to the top. Not a popular choice, but it’s there.
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