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 -
Here is the problem with advocating censorship of "bad" ideas: If it is permissible make rules about what ideas can be expressed, then someone has to make those rules. And who will that be, people with power, or people without power. Obviously the former.
Btw, I am referring to censorship of ideas, not obscenity, not child porn, and not any of the 1000 other things that those who favor censoring ideas they don't like want to conflate therewith.
I disagree with this argument (and all similar "how would you like it if it were the right wing censoring left wing ideas?" ones)
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that (idea) censorship, as a technique, is inherently bad - even if its being done on behalf of your in-group in order to suppress the out-group.
There are techniques that I would consider inherently evil, even if done against people I disagree with (torture, vigilante violence, etc)
But as suppression techniques go, censorship is rather underrated:
Yes, the people in power want to stay in power, and everyone wants to impose what they believe to be moral on reality.
If you genuinely believe that all criticism of Jews is unfounded in reality and that allowing such ideas to exist in the mainstream could lead to a 21st century Holocaust, then why shouldn't you stop these anti-Semites from trying to prosecute such a wantonly cruel agenda?
Sure, it would be bad for your cause if the tables were turned, and it were the enemy in power, censoring all of your own propaganda. And censoring them now will have the second order effect of making it more likely they censor you later on. But that's outweighed by the first order effect of actually censoring them.
Is it? Is it really?
Because we can actually have a look at a country that followed your proscription! Weimar Germany had very strong laws against hate speech, and they prosecuted and banned publication of Der Sturmer more oppressively and consistently than we ban The Daily Stormer in the modern day. Hitler was banned from speaking in public for several years, and many high ranking nazis went to prison for violating the criminal code in their public statements. Did this stop the rise of anti-semitism in pre-Nazi Germany? Because I think the actual outcome we observed was the opposite of what your theory here predicted.
According to the wikipedia page:
So it seems they were only censored by the Nazis themselves? (I'm unsure whether you just didn't know this or they were also independently censored by the Weimar republic - I couldn't find anything suggesting the latter by a quick google search, but I'd welcome any evidence of this)
For an actual example of hostile censorship of the Nazis, we can note the party was banned following the Beer Hall Putsch.
Let's consider the national election results of the Nazi party (prior to Hitler becoming Fuhrer)
In 1928 they had about 10 seats, which is basically nothing, and then they rose to relevance in the 1930 election (alongside the Communists) with about 100 seats. This was due to the Great Depression in 1929 causing unemployment to increase.
On the other hand, the ban of the Nazi party happened before 1928, and so this censorship did not have the effect of somehow rallying the base. Rather the obvious thing happened - i.e. the ban just worked in suppressing them.
I never claimed that censorship is some kind of silver bullet that grants a regime total unqualified immunity from any kind of dissent. It's just a useful tool that increases the odds of a favourable outcome. But in the case of Weimar/Nazi Germany, there was too much ruin to be papered over by propaganda.
Also, if you really believe in what you're saying, I assume that means you are happy when a cause you care about is censored/suppressed? (This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm honestly asking for a yes/no)
I was basing my claim off the following report - https://www.bjpa.org/content/upload/bjpa/4_an/4_Anti-Semitism_September-October_1940.pdf The source doesn't seem like a nazi one so I'm not particularly bothered, but if you look up the history of Julius Streicher he was in a lot of trouble with the law in Weimar Germany. It isn't a surprise that the nazis also went after him later - wikipedia says that it was due to embarrassment at his vulgar, low-brow and attention grabbing style, which I find very plausible.
OK, and what happened next? Yeah, you had the immediate effect of lowering public support... but that doesn't actually do anything to my claim, which is that censorship ultimately has a self-defeating effect even if you get a bit of suppression at first. I feel pretty confident in saying that the Nazi party wasn't actually wiped out or defeated by being censored in Weimar Germany, and while I've heard of holocaust deniers I've never encountered any Nazi Germany deniers.
It is my contention that propaganda and suppression of speech like this will always fail and has only a short-term efficacy. For something like the Biden laptop story, where all that matters is suppressing coverage just before an election, censorship can work - but that's far more limited than what you're claiming, and even then the negative consequences are already starting to show up.
Absolutely not. Censorship like this is a waste of time and energy, causes problems in the short term and the long term and completely fails to address the root causes of whatever noxious belief you're trying to censor is - not to mention it lends credibility to the censored ("The powers that be fear this message so much they do not want you to hear it! I will bravely stand up for my convictions and suffer the slings and arrows of our powerful enemies due to my love for the people" etc). The spreading of ideas and philosophies, especially negative and anti-social ones, are essentially a warning light that something in society is failing. If you're the captain of a ship and a massive warning siren comes on telling you about incoming danger, you might want to temporarily shut off the siren so you can have a bit of time to think - but if you think turning off the siren is a substitute for dealing with the problems that it actually signifies, you're setting yourself up for ruin.
Thanks for the evidence.
Well yes, it didn't work in this particular case. But it does work in other cases (for a recent example, consider how Western public attitudes/treatment of homosexuals has shifted in the last 20 years)
Just because a technique has a < 100% success rate doesn't mean it's never effective. In this case, the reality of the situation was so bad that it overcame the propaganda and censorship.
How is this not a perfect example of my point? Hunter did what he did, and the Democrats couldn't fix it. So instead they suppressed it, and managed to win an election.
There was fallout later on, but that was just because there was an actual problem that had occurred. If they had just allowed the story to be disseminated freely, they would have been in even more trouble.
"All forms of medicine are an exercise in futility - the human body inevitably tends towards decay and death, any kind of pill/surgery is just a short-term delay tactic"
Yes, ideally you just address the actual problem. But what happens when one of the following is true:
The problem is beyond your ability to address (What exactly would you propose the Weimar republic have done differently? German currency was backed by US dollars, so when the US was ruined by the Depression, so were they. That's not some policy that the German government could just reverse)
The establishment's values and priorities misalign with the that of the majority. My understanding is that the people running the Weimar republic valued progressive ideals such as loosening sexual mores, women's rights, etc - and like the progressives of today, saw these things as intrinsically good - they were the end which justified the means. And the Nazi party saw these things as degenerate and unnatural.
So in either case, whether it because you can't solve the problem, or you don't even believe the "problem" is a problem - you do the next best thing, which is to discourage anyone causing any ruckus by thinking about the problem.
But you have to hear what the censored person is trying to say to pass any kind of judgement on their ideas in the first place.
???
Where's the censorship of gay rights activism? I do not understand what point you're making here.
First of all, I'd just like to point out that if the result of your strategy to defeat antisemitism is the actual literal holocaust, your strategy most likely has some big problems! Your comment about the reality of the situation also has me slightly confused - are you saying that the jews were actually so terrible that not even the power of censorship was enough to prevent anti-semitism? I really, really don't think this is a winning approach for your argument, but if you want to stand on this hill and proclaim that censorship is so effective that it can turn pervasive anti-semitism into a fascist dictatorship that tries to ethnically cleanse the semites I'm not going to stop you from advertising how correct my point is.
This doesn't mean you give people heroin to relieve the pain from a mild toothache. There are some things which we know do not work in medicine, and the fact that everyone ultimately dies one day is not a good reason to bust out the trepanning equipment.
I don't actually know how you conclusively defeat anti-semitism or stop it from being a problem - as far as I can tell, nobody in the entire history of the world has a good answer to this question, so I don't think my failure here should reflect negatively on my argument.
If an idea is at the point where it needs censoring then this process has already started. Again, I don't really think I have any point I can make that is stronger than "You think the strategy that took an anti-semitic society to the point where they committed genocide against the jews is a good idea".
I meant that anti-gay-rights activism has been censored in recent decades.
And I believe that this was a major factor in turning homosexuality from being seen as an unusual kink that should be tolerated based on "live and let live" ideals, to a legitimate, wholesome lifestyle which is deserving of widespread support and state-backing.
The homosexual advocates didn't come up with some devilishly clever new argument. Through the use of slogans ("love is love", "love is a human right", etc) and shaming, in the space of about a decade - we went from center-right politicians voting against homosexual marriage, to any opposition towards homosexuality pushed outside the Overton window (indeed - even a conservative can only protest the excesses of the movement like Drag Queen Story Hours, they have to make it clear that there's nothing inherently wrong with the lifestyle)
I'm claiming that the holocaust wasn't the result of censorship. Instead it was due to pre-existing anti-semetic attitudes and that Germany was going through a tough time (Treaty of Versailles, the Depression, etc)
There are lots of good examples where censorship has lead to otherwise unpopular agendas gaining power (just look at contemporary issues like BLM, trans rights, gay rights, etc) - which is why I claim it is an effective tool (there was just too much societal ruin prior to the holocaust)
Due to a higher IQ than Whites, Jews naturally tend towards being overrepresented in politics, and being wealthier than average, with the Weimar republic being a special case. Further, they are more liberal than Whites, which likely increased the extent of their impact on various forms of "degeneracy" brought about by the Weimar republic.
So if you have a problem with the Weimar republic, and are against sexual liberalism, then you would be drawn to anti-semitism (unless any criticism of Jews were made socially unacceptable and associated with schizophrenic losers)
However I believe that anti-semitism (whether based on genuine problems or not) played a very small role in the rise of Hitler. The biggest cause was obviously just the bad economic situation of Germany, which lead people to feel resentful and desperate, and seek out an extreme solution, blowing their grievances way out of proportion.
For the most part, certainly in contemporary Western society which is the context for most discussions about censorship, there isn't any such desperation. People might have problems with policy X, but if you just make it inconvenient to voice opposition to it, they'll eventually give you your way.
It's been pretty well accomplished in modern Western society. The only people/organisations which I can think of that are anti-semitic would be completely irrelevant fringe figures from White/Black Supremacist movements (indeed, even in the case of actual White supremacists, there seems to be disagreement on this issue - with Jared Taylor considering them as Whites)
And this has been accomplished by making criticism of Jews completely forbidden. Indeed, whilst they are far from alone in the long list of groups which you're not supposed to criticise, we go even further in the case of Jews - you can't even mention the fact that you're not allowed to criticise them (as that would be affirming the anti-semitic trope that Jews control popular culture)
Yes, the process has started - that doesn't mean it can't be stopped.
There is a massive gulf between some greentexts and forum posts by aryanpepe1488 on Storm Front, and an idea entering the public conscious to be discussed in polite conversation amongst normies.
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
No, the idea behind it is usually good. It's that is always ends up getting abused...
Just look at history (looking at you blasphemy laws), the pattern is the same each time.
Now, I'm not saying that we can't have any regulations on speech (ie fire in a crowded theater that is not in danger) but any rules need to be transparent and very carefully constructed.
I think you misunderstand me. I see blasphemy laws as the same in character to hate speech laws, and I'm saying both of them are a good thing.
I assume the terrible "pattern" you refer to is stuff like this. Obviously in contemporary Western society, even the most extreme anti-Semite isn't burned at the stake, or even executed.
But the principle - that you can be legally prosecuted by the state for being a dissident - remains the same (It's just that we don't even perform such gruesome acts on actual violent criminals), and I argue that unless you find the management of our current society intolerable (in which case you wouldn't be happy even with the freedom to proselytise your beliefs) this is a good thing.
I have no sympathy for the victims of such government persecutions given that, despite fully understanding the rules, they deliberately chose to disobey them for the purposes of a principled stand. I can't really empathise with such a person because I would never be in such a situation - if I were bound to the post, as an angry Protestant gave me one last chance to renounce my Catholicism, I would just say "I renounce my Catholicism" and walk away a free man, having suffered only a wound to my ego.
I agree with the need for transparency. But you seem to imply that lack of transparency is an issue with the current rules, which I disagree with.
The current rules change with time (About 20 years ago, the statement "a man cannot become a woman" was considered so obvious that no one would even say it, but now this would be considered transphobic) - however it's pretty easy to get a sense of what beliefs are socially appropriate to express.
In my experience, when I have made statements that have fallen outside of the Overton window amongst acquaintances it was made pretty clear to me (an awkward silence, someone explaining that I'm being "narrow-minded" or "ignorant", etc) and so I know to drop the issue and ensure to never bring the idea up again in polite company.
And historically, every famous story about someone being persecuted for their beliefs seems to include multiple opportunities to recant the offending belief, which they explicitly reject.
As for "carefully constructed", I disagree. I assume you mean the rules should be as meta as possible, and try and reflect general moral principles instead of just taking a stance on some specific contemporary controversy (i.e. "It is unfair to blame a group for the actions of an individual" is better than "you can't say Black people are violent because of their crime rate")
It can be tricky to figure out what your foundational moral principles are (I'm honestly not sure about my own) In practise this is just done by considering how you feel about various controversies/thought experiments and then trying to find the simplest possible consistent framework that explains all of these feelings. But you can easily get wider framework wrong, in ways you might not think of.
Consider my example about Black people again. A typical progressive would agree with the object level statement that you can't judge the entire group of Black people by the behaviour of a tiny unruly minority, and the meta level rule is a pretty reasonable attempt to create a general moral framework that would let us derive this conclusion.
But of course a typical progressive would also agree with the idea that "The police are racist towards black people". If you asked why, this would at least in part be because of events like the death of George Floyd, i.e. actions committed by a small subset of the group. This is of course a pretty common right wing talking point, and can be easily patched by amending the general principle to exclude groups you join voluntarily.
But had our progressive tried going the meta route, they would find themselves hoist by their own petard (Even the amended version runs into difficulties - do homosexuals lose their protected status now, as they can choose to just not indulge their preference? I have yet to see a general moral framework for progressivism that doesn't lead to undesired conclusions)
So instead, our censor (whatever their ideological persuasion), should focus on attacking specific object-level beliefs instead of running the risk of logicking themselves into a corner (and this has the bonus of being more transparent)
OK, hard disagree. I'll be honest, I stopped here. We have a completely different understanding of history.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Censorship has been an obvious and pervasive aspect of American social technology since well before the founding, all the way back to the initial colonization. How did our long and rich history of censorship amount to abuse, and what were the concrete negative consequences of that abuse?
As a non-exhaustive list:
The Sedition Act was near-instantly turned into a political tool, including of jailing dissenters and political opponents, including with charges related to writings predating the Act's enactment. In addition to not doing much good about the whole War With Napoleon thing, the statute legitimized a lot of internal revolutionary speech and literal rebellions, and badly damaged interstate comity; while not the sole cause of current red-hot judiciary problems, it's very much the first bite at the fruit.
Comstock personally used the law to charge sufferagettes in response to publishing an alleged affair by one of Comstock's . Leaving aside the object-level debates for his censorship itself being bad, the expansive and often quixotic efforts undermined much of his more conventional anti-fraud and anti-spam efforts, was an absolute mess when it came to actual STDs, and often publicized and promoted the very works he was opposing. (Also, from a social perspective, he also inspired a certain J. Edgar Hoover.)
McCarthyism blurred the lines between communist party Russian stooge, 'mere' philosophical sympathizer, and People Who Annoyed McCarthy well before the Army inquiries. In doing so, he both destroyed future anti-Soviet-espionage efforts and provided cover for tankie academics for decades.
Of course, the more morbid question is when did it have a negative impact on the censors; telling people that they'll win but burn down society invites a lot of Joker cosplay. The Adams administration didn't win reelection, but that was probably off the table before the Adams administration first won the presidency; Adams himself nor the Sedition Act's authors were prosecuted. Comstock made his keep off of those he fined and punished. McCarthy died abandoned, so there's that one I guess?
This was an excellent post, and a perfect example of what I was looking for: strong historical cases of actual censorship.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Orangecat clearly isn't talking about every form of censorship, the impression I got was they are talking about censorship to protect people's feelings or in some other impulsive fashion - the kind which simply wallpapers over an issue, usually to shut up agitators. I can't think of any time that has had a positive impact on society.
When did it have a notably negative impact on society, though?
...I've just finished one big debate on censorship, and I'm not really up for jumping into another one. I know the consensus is supposed to be that censorship is very bad, m'kay. I observe that large amount of censorship, through a variety of methods and with a variety of targets, appears to have been the norm throughout our nation's entire history, excepting perhaps two decades bookending the turn of the last century which were unusually permissive, and which were immediately followed by an acute decline in social conditions.
I know how this all is supposed to work. I am skeptical that it actually works that way. I note that a lot of the standard narrative about censorship conveniently ignores most of the censorship actually happening in the past or present, and gets pretty hand-wavey about nailing down cause and effect.
Covid would be my first example, but it's the first of thousands so I assume I am misunderstanding you. The way I see it, people who argue against censorship aren't arguing against censorship, which is an amorphous concept found in every sphere of life, and as you (and @orangecat) say, often with positive effects. They are trying to stop power grabbing. Someone proposing censorship is trying to assume power they didn't previously have, and anyone grabbing power should be suspect, because the unscrupulous outnumber the scrupulous a thousand to one.
Speech is a particularly important power because it is the basis of communication, allowing our hierarchies to exceed our physical limitations. So I immediately suspect anyone who tries to take it, and it completely blows my mind that anyone would willingly give it up, especially for a reason as minor as hurt feelings or to cover up a mistake. And since in my lifetime I haven't seen any negative consequences to telling censors to fuck off - ever - but can list multiple times I desperately wished everyone else had told the censors to fuck off, I don't see a problem with drawing a line in the sand at 'no censorship'.
I mean, you're right that permissiveness leads to worse social conditions, but if that's all that mattered Saudi Arabia would be a utopia. It's not, (unless you have a fetish for censorship, then it's pretty great) so we get back to the same problem as always - who gets to inflict their values on whom? We can only go forward from here - there's no getting back the Hayes code and CCA.
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
You do not understand me correctly. It is not the technique of suppression that I object to, but the suppression itself.
And, while I suppose it is true that censorship of dissidents is better than murdering them, it is also true that some techniques of murdering dissidents are better than others because of the lower risk of collateral damage, if we are discussing "what it the best method of silencing those with whom we disagree," I think perhaps we have taken our eye off the ball.
I expressed myself clumsily. That is exactly what I thought you meant. I was pointing out that suppression, in an of itself, isn't an inherently bad thing (I don't want dissidents murdered, but only because I don't want anyone killed or otherwise physically harmed unless there is no other option)
Obviously, since I don't see a regime silencing it's detractors as wrong, that question is extremely relevant to me (And my answer - as thoroughly as you can, so long as it's done non-violently and only to people who are being intentionally hostile to your interests)
I've never seen this quote before, but it nicely captures a lot of my thoughts on this issue.
What an eloquent and persuasive steel man of my position.
I wrongly inferred from your OP that you were making the "what if the tables were turned" argument.
The market place of ideas thing makes sense - even if you truly believe something, and have total authority, you could just be wrong about the thing, and so being able to critically examine your beliefs is clearly to your benefit.
However social media/the public square/etc aren't platforms for dispassionate rational debate. They are primarily a platform to spread propaganda and push an agenda based upon a belief system you've already decided upon.
I like to use The Motte precisely because of what Holmes is saying - so that my perception is as close to objective reality as possible. I use twitter to enjoy memes/rants that affirm my pre-existing world-view.
The current system of hate speech laws/cancel culture works gives the people holding the lever the best of both worlds. They can impose their will, which they believe will make the world a better place, and also can go to obscure corners of the internet to test out their thinking in private.
If that is what you think, I am afraid that we don’t have much to tallk about. But I can say that if you think that social media can't be a vastly better space for rational debate than The Motte, of all places*, then you are following the wrong people on Twitter.
As my father would say, if The Motte is not a platform to push an agenda based upon a belief system you've already decided upon, it will more than suffice until such a platform comes along.
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