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 -
From what I remember, another big issue with Industrial Society and Its Future is that, while Kaczynski's analysis of our current situation is interesting and in many ways on point, as soon as he starts to talk about what to do about it the whole thing becomes laughably stupid. Granted it's been a while but from what I remember, he has no better suggestions than to organize small cells of resistance fighters and hope for the best. How these revolutionaries would gain support from the masses, given that the success of the revolution would clearly mean the death of most of those same masses on a scale that would make the Khmer Rouge seem trivial, is not explained. Nor is it explained how the revolutionaries would overcome other armed, organized forces that do not have any distaste of technology.
Then again, the fundamental problem is that there is, really, little in the way to any potential solutions for what Kaczynski considers a problem, since one of the features of the technological society by definition in comparison to anti-technologists is its ability to use technology to stave off any potential threats (through force, intelligence ops, propaganda etc.) The only thing one might imagine possible would be to work from the inside as an accelerationist and hoping that will eventually lead to a collapse, but Kaczynski doesn't seem to believe in that either, believing it will just lead to a wholesale technocratic dystopia.
Modern society isn't immune from violent disruption. It skirts by only on the grace of people not being sadistic and maniacal enough to go for the really hard to replace infrastructure. If one really wanted to hurt people, targeting the electric grid and drinking water supply could really, really do some damage and doesn't require nation state actor level of sophistication or weapons.
If this is done at anything less than world-ending scale, technological society will hormetically adapt to prevent future instances. It is all but hopeless.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link