site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   28321 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 28, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's getting unavoidable - the quality of news and novel information obtained from time here is crashing. I used to hear things here first - now I usually don't hear them here at all.

Recently I brought up Rich Men North of Richmond - only because no one else did - and pretty well everyone shit on it for one reason or another. 'Should've sang about this instead,' 'this song is better,' 'why'd he bring this up' etc. But it's the biggest song on the planet. You were all wrong and I was right to bring it to your attention. How can we raise the quality of posts back to be worthy of attention, so readers are informed about developments in the culture war?

  • -22

Keith woods says it better than me

Conservatism as Anti-Ideology

There was much debate online recently over the political beliefs of country music singer Oliver Anthony. Anthony captured the hearts of conservatives with his “Rich Men North of Richmond”, which took aim at out of touch fatcat Yankees who have abandoned people like him. At first there was no question to conservatives, Anthony was definitely one of them. After all, he railed against welfare queens, taxes, and complained about elites not relating to regular folk. Anthony did alienate some of his newfound following when an interview of him appeared where he affirmed the “diversity is our strength” mantra. Then the first question at the first of this years Republican Party primary debates was the hosts asking the field for their interpretation of Athony’s masterpiece, to which an indignant Mr. Anthony then responded with derision for the entire field, reminding Republican partisans that these politicians were actually part of the elite he was singing about.

Still, most conservatives are not in any doubt that Oliver Anthony is one of them, and I think they’re correct. The fact that he is almost indistinguishable in his rhetoric from a Berniebro Democrat is a feature, not a bug. Neither is it a problem that the message in his song seemed inconsistent - targeting rich capitalists as the source of his problems in the same song that he complained about taxation and welfare spending. Conservatism in recent years has lost any positive content, it is now best understood as an anti-ideology, a vague, paranoid and inconsistent critique of a nebulous “elite”, the only point of which is to spread a general mistrust in whoever happens to be in power. ... Modern conservatism in the English speaking world developed out of the cadre of conservatives who formed the National Review in 1955, led by William F. Buckley. Buckley believed he had found a program to unite the two camps who dominated the right, but had been up to that point adversarial: the Burkean conservatives, led by figureheads like Russell Kirk, and the increasingly expanding camp of libertarians, who had been influenced by works like Friedrich Hayeks The Road to Serfdom. The program that would unite them was the “fusionism” of Frank Meyer, a German-Jewish immigrant to the United States who himself abandoned communism after reading Hayek’s work while serving in the US Army. Frank S. Meyer: The Fusionist as Libertarian | Mises Institute .... Since at least the 2000s, the conservatism of Reagan and Thatcher has been in retreat, while it found a resurgence with the Tea Party program during the Obama administration, this trend was swept aside by the muscular populism of Donald Trump. Since then, conservatism has lost any vestiges of whatever positive content it had remaining. Free market economics are still central to the establishment GOP politicians, but many conservatives now sound like economic populists, seeing rich capitalists as part of the same elite class as liberal politicians. While many conservatives still stand firm on abortion, there is little else in the way of the social conservatism that used to define the right: Trump was the most pro-gay US President in history, and modern conservatives are all too happy to embrace their own, based versions of “trans women” like Blair White if they affirm them back. Alex Jones asks Blaire White if "the chemicals" made her trans | Media Matters for America -... So what’s left? Well, there’s definitely a strong belief that the elites are evil - ridiculously, cartoonishly evil, to the point that they poison the water and the skies, intentionally derail trains, and start wars just to make common people suffer. There is also a strong cynicism about politics and idealism generally, not only is the conservative anti-ideological, but they are convinced everyone else is too, and that people that profess to believe in leftist ideals like egalitarianism are just cynics who don’t really believe it. As saimleuch, conservatives will often critique leftists for being inconsistent anti-racists or say things like their affirmation of trans rights is rooted in a hatred of women. Oliver Anthony engaged in some of this on his recent appearance on Joe Rogan. Rogan pointed out that Democrats in the early 90s “sounded like Nazis”, Oliver Anthony recognised the argument and immediately pointed out that Democrats like Hillary and Obama didn’t even support gay marriage in the 2000s! .. It is of course an eternal source of frustration to people on the radical right that conservatives attack the left by holding them to the moral standard the left itself has established, thus enforcing the leftist moral framework on the whole political spectrum. This seems obviously counter-productive, until you realise there is no alternative program the conservatives are advancing anyway - all that matters is getting people to share the same sense of cynicism and mistrust of power, so an accusation of racism or homophobia works as well as anything else.

https://keithwoodspub.substack.com/p/conservatism-as-anti-ideology

Conservatism lacks ideology, vision and a moral compass. At this point it is just angry ranting against cartoon vilians who are satanically evil. There is little systemic analysis instead there is an over emphasis of conspiracies. If the populist conservatives took power, they would be incapable of wielding it since their policies lack depth beyond SJWs bad but trans people with MAGA hats good. Conservatives are too negative, their entire focus is on what they dislike. Rich people bad, welfare queens bad, Klaus Schwab bad but what is good?

My life sucks, boo out group isn't really lyrics that inspire or offer novel insights. It isn't surprising that the anglosphere right has greater problems attracting young people than the right in the rest of the west. AfD, Sweden democrats and national rally do fairly well among young voters. The rather aimless right in the anglosphere fails at attracting young people and successful people. A young highly educated person is simply going to find the aesthetics and the values of mainstream conservatism boring and unappealing. It isn't a uniting message, it is a message with no vision that is anti PMC. I simply struggle to see a well travelled, highly educated person fitting in to the conservative movement at all. The right is making itself culturally toxic defenders of boomer rights.

This is a low effort post.

You posted a very long 'boo out-group' copy/paste, the said

Conservatism lacks ideology, vision and a moral compass

and patted yourself on the back.

You didn't contribute anything and used a especially weak strawman. There's even a section about joe rogan...

Do you think it's fair to strawman the left? There's plenty of material there.

Do you think copy/pasting someone you think is smart, makes you smart, have vision, and a moral compass?

I think it's because culture war issues are cheap issues, it's politicised tribalism where it costs almost no time or effort for politicians . It means that they can free significant political capital to spend on their own personal in-group interests and the interests of their key supporters. If all you have to do is take any reactionary/annoying/grumpy talking point and amplify it, and say 'other side bad', then you have a quick and dirty means to bolster cheap support. I think we need to look deeper than the specific talking points of the culture war to the underlying structure of the game that is being played underneath. The culture war excites our limbic system, but I feel that it acts as a distraction as its straight up buying the kayfabe and talking about the game under the assumption that it's being played straight.

If the populist conservatives took power, they would be incapable of wielding it since their policies lack depth beyond SJWs bad but trans people with MAGA hats good.

Here are three policy positions that virtually every populist conservative would cream their pants at. You can think they're retarded or wrong, but they are actual positions

  1. Deport anyone here illegally
  2. Start paying down the national debt
  3. No more foreign wars

If you choose to believe that your enemies are all clowns without depth that's your choice. 'Nazi' is a derogatory nickname for 'Ignatius' - a common Bavarian peasant name.

The rather aimless right in the anglosphere fails at attracting young people and successful people. A young highly educated person is simply going to find the aesthetics and the values of mainstream conservatism boring and unappealing. It isn't a uniting message, it is a message with no vision that is anti PMC. I simply struggle to see a well travelled, highly educated person fitting in to the conservative movement at all.

Morality is defined by wherever elite human capital is trending, and the sooner you make your peace with that, the happier you will be.

I think history is defined by elite human capital, and moral fashions are thusly defined. But a lot of historical movements have turned out to be wrong, misguided, or anti-human. Morality is not completely subjective, and some moralities are quite simply wrong. It would wrong to impoverish people to meet climate change goals. It would be wrong to silence dissent. Whether or not the PMC like those things, they are still wrong.

I do think that the movement of populist social conservatives and even somewhat reactionary populism is in its infancy, and that it will gain more momentum as it becomes obvious that the Globalist Hegemony is not delivering the kind of life the elites want to live, or the kinds of societies that humans want to live in. Look around the places where globalism is most in force, and ask yourself if you would want to raise a family there. Does any sane person aspire to live in Los Angeles among druggies, shoplifters, and have to leave their cars unlocked lest their windows get smashed? Does anyone dream of perma-renting and job hopping hoping to stay ahead of rolling layoffs? Do you want to send your kids to schools more interested in propaganda and indoctrination than reading, writing and mathematical skills? Just because the mainstream of the conservative and populist movements can’t articulate a vision doesn’t mean that the status quo is anything people want. In fact, the zoomer generation are already doomers, they don’t see the point in participating in society or trying to fix things, or even trying to build a life for themselves.

Also it is funny to juxtapose this discussion of PMC and the NPC discussion. Yes, conservatism is abhorrent to the PMC because it isn’t fashionable and a key tenet of belonging to the PMC is don’t be gauche.

Trying to win the aspiring PMC is trying to win people whose goal isn’t belief in something but belief in someone.

Yeah, but, again, it’s relatively easy to show that these ideas not only do not work, but often do the most harm to those it’s intended to help. Teach poor black kids to read and do math, and they can possibly make something of themselves. Waste time on ideology and they remain wards of the state.

I don’t think conservatism is anti math or anti reading. Quite the opposite. But there is a difference between learning and being a PMC.

My point is just showing people the results, especially where the results harm those the globalist ideology is trying to help, and how much harm it does generally would eventually move the needle here on what the PMC wants. They can’t deny that civilization has gotten worse since the project began in the late 1960s. They can’t ignore businesses leaving their cities, or homeless encampments in every open space, or drug users shambling about looking like zombies. They also can’t ignore just how ignorant most Americans are. That’s what more or less disabused me of a lot of those ideas — seeing the results of those ideas in ways that even an ideologue would find hard to ignore.

The song isn’t inconsistent at all. The song isn’t complaining about the rich generally; it is complaining about DC (ie the government types) rich people specifically. One can believe DC is oppressive, steals resources to make themselves rich, and therefore one can desire tax cuts without a hint of cognitive dissonance (indeed trying to cut off the spigot is consistent with believing the first two).

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