site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   28935 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 7, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Judging people entirely by what they wrote years ago is such a weak, modern thing.

Go back a century or two (or even to the middle of the twentieth century) and huge ideological journeys over the course of a lifetime, from left to right, from right to left, back again, across religion and secularism, republicanism and absolutism, liberty and tyranny are commonplace among public intellectuals, writers, politicians and philosophers.

One thing arguably quite unique about progressive cancel culture is its utter resistance to even capitulation or apology. Most historical ideological movements were quite happy to adopt former foes if they agreed to repent. Yes, you had to convert or die, but at least you could convert. This was the normal thing. Often only those who refused out of principle to convert, or (in rarer cases) who were believed to have converted insincerely, were not spared. The CCP famously even spared and converted the last Emperor of China, who was widely considered to have gladly sold out his countrymen to the Japanese (and so was not merely hated for being a monarch).

When the Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong came to power in 1949, Puyi was repatriated to China after negotiations between the Soviet Union and China. Puyi was of considerable value to Mao, as Behr noted: "In the eyes of Mao and other Chinese Communist leaders, Pu Yi, the last Emperor, was the epitome of all that had been evil in old Chinese society. If he could be shown to have undergone sincere, permanent change, what hope was there for the most diehard counter-revolutionary? The more overwhelming the guilt, the more spectacular the redemption-and the greater glory of the Chinese Communist Party"

It speaks to the fear, the emptiness, the hollowness of progressive ideology that they actually don't believe they can facilitate sincere conversions to the faith. 'If you once denounced us, you are an enemy for all time' isn't something that comes from a position of strength but from one of weakness.

Most historical ideological movements were quite happy to adopt former foes if they agreed to repent. Yes, you had to convert or die, but at least you could convert.

This isn't right: progressive activists are more than happy to accept converts, as long as they abase themselves completely and become zealous true-believers. If you continue to challenge their authority or their most important commitments, you have not actually repented in a meaningful way.

Consider Peter Boghossian's one-time collaborator Émile P. Torres, turned dogged antagonist of rationalism and BFF of Timnet Gebru. Hanania didn't do this: he merely renounced some of his earlier beliefs. It's as if Martin Luther trimmed his sails a bit and decided he would only stand behind sixty-three of his theses after all, and, by the way, the Pope still isn't legitimate.

It was a big change for him, but as far as progressives are concerned, he hasn't even started to repent.

Consider Peter Boghossian's one-time collaborator Émile P. Torres, turned dogged antagonist of rationalism and BFF of Timnet Gebru.

Torres never said anything even 1/10th as radical as what Hanania writes today, let alone under the unearthed pseudonym. Also, New Atheism was orthogonal rather than hostile to 'the left' or progressive consensus until GamerGate, and by that point (2014/2015) the movement had largely already died, a full six years into the Obama administration.

I actually do think there are counterexamples, even radical ones, but they tend to be working class, 'prison gang' type tattooed neo-nazis who undergo a full ideological conversion and then join progressive charities as public speakers to at-risk kids or whatever, they're not intellectuals.

I agree with you, without reservation. Moreover, I loved reading your post I was responding to - the historical perspective is useful and relevant in Hanania's case.

But I stand by my point, which is that while Hanania has come a long way, I don't think it's reasonable to describe him as a convert. Moreover, as you observe, progressive activists would welcome converts - from whatever ideological distance. But the price of conversion is complete submission, not apology or even renouncing myriad specific offenses. I don't think any American intellectual is willing to pay that price, whether it's because of pride, tribal instincts, or the manifest philosophical defects of the social justice worldview, which means we may never see CCP-style conversions. (At least I'm crossing my fingers that it never comes to that.)

I'm not the first person to note how ironic this is for the political wing most likely to claim to support rehabilitative criminal justice.

Having different (and harsher) standards for political criminals as opposed to ordinary ones is nothing new.

The CCP famously even spared and converted the last Emperor of China, who was widely considered to have gladly sold out his countrymen to the Japanese (and so was not merely hated for being a monarch).

In fairness, this was less about their philosophy on forgiveness (his wife, the empress, died in a CCP prison) and a very large part to do with them learning from the backlash the Bolsheviks experieced after killing the Romanovs.

There are some incredible, SNL-skit worthy scenes of Puyi trying to reintegrate to normal life and going to get an ID from the local government office that go somewhat like:

Bored DMV-esque Employee: Name?

Puyi: Yaozhi

Employee: Former occupation?

Puyi: Uhhh Emperor of the Celestial Kingdom of China

Employee: Haha no seriously though

Bored DMV-esque Employee: Name?

Puyi: Yaozhi

Employee: Former occupation?

Puyi: Uhhh Emperor of the Celestial Kingdom of China

Employee: Haha no seriously though

I mean, this is close enough to real life. In his first day as a street sweeper he got lost:

I'm Puyi, the last Emperor of the Qing dynasty. I'm staying with relatives and can't find my way home.

Worth remembering the next time a crazy guy on the street tells you he's royalty! One day I want to read his autobiography, though I imagine it's heavily constrained by censorship.

In fairness, this was less about their philosophy on forgiveness (his wife, the empress, died in a CCP prison) and a very large part to do with them learning from the backlash the Bolsheviks experieced after killing the Romanovs.

What backlash?

Several of the other nations of Europe were led by extended family of the Romanovs and the royal families of the UK, Spain, Denmark, and Germany, as well as the Vatican, all tried (incompetently and vascillatingly) to rescue them. The UK's first serious diplomatic outreach to my knowledge to the Soviet leadership was about protecting the lives of the Romanovs “Any violence inflicted on the Emperor or his family would have an extremely deplorable and indignant effect on the public opinion of this country.” The murder of Nihcolas II (the rest of them wouldn't be known till much later) poisoned the international community against them significantly during the era the USSR was making its first attempts to establish diplomatic relations. Many countries issued public condemnations, including those with no familial relation like Italy, France, and the US, and even nonaligned countries such as Switzerland, Norway, and Sweden.

Ah, thanks. I was thinking about domestic backlash.

Ah, got it. The reaction within Russia was pretty muted right?

Well, we were kinda busy killing each other. The Whites tried to use the news of the execution to vilify the Reds, but since it was them who had deposed the emperor in the first place to an almost unanimous approval, that wasn't really effective. Why grieve about the family of a citizen Romanov when your own brother's family is equally dead?

Fair points all.

his wife, the empress, died in a CCP prison

She died of opium withdrawal and (self-imposed) starvation, though, historians don't believe she was murdered. Her brother was later released, worked for the government and died in 2007.

But I agree Puyi's story is funny, has its own charm. It shows how total a regime change is when you can have someone like that around, safe in the knowledge that they are now, truly, a nobody.

Sure, no quibbles (other than that the CCP weren't broadly known for forgiving and rehabilitating most of their ideological enemies). I'll be honest, I mostly commented because I really love that story.

But I agree Puyi's story is funny, has its own charm. It shows how total a regime change is when you can have someone like that around, safe in the knowledge that they are now, truly, a nobody.

Made even more poignant by that he was the figurehead of a failed Qing restoration, and in adulthood still had aspirations to restore the Qing (a good part of how he got convinced to act as a Japanese puppet).

I’ve always found his story (and Wanrong’s) to be quite sad, if not too sympathy-inducing.

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