site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   29312 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Origins of Woke has not become a best seller. As of this writing, the top non-fiction book on both the Publishers Weekly and NYT best sellers lists is The Democrat Party Hates America by Mark R. Levin. While I haven't read Levin's book, I'm sure it's as disposable as any other political tract by a Fox News host, while The Origins of Woke is legitimately the most important conservative book of the last 20 years.

Argument: It's not selling well because of the Huffington Post article that exposed his old blog posts to the masses. Counterargument: Conservatives are the target market, and they tend not to "cancel" people over things like this.

Argument: It's not selling more copies because the name is cringe. Counterargument: Donald J. Trump Jr's book "Triggered" became a best seller.

Argument: It's not selling more copies because Hanania isn't a celebrity. Counterargument: Andy Ngo doesn't host anything or do many public appearances, but his book was still a best-seller.

I don't care whether Hanania is personally successful, but I really, really want the ideas in this book to gain widespread recognition. Hanania offers provide a plausible-enough plan to defeat not only wokeness, but also all of the ideologies that have gained popularity in the wake of Conservative Inc's failure to stop wokeness, including white nationalism and NRx. Speaking as a former white nationalist (or whatever you wanna call VDare readers), people with moderate temperaments adopt extreme beliefs because the mainstream hasn't offered any believable alternative.

Ben Shapiro says that we should just argue people into adopting our views because it'll suddenly work, even though we've been trying for years and it hasn't worked. Peter Brimelow says we should close the border and have white babies. Curtis Yarvin says that we should put a dictator in charge, or at least whatever FDR was. Caldwell says that we should repeal the Civil Rights Act, even though it's as much a part of our national identity at this point as the Constitution.

Hanania's proposal is essentially a modification of Caldwell's that takes political realities into account. Instead of repealing the Civil Rights Act, we should just re-interpret it in an originalist light and repeal the modifications made in the decades afterwards.

I can't say for certain why this book isn't making bank, but I theorize that it has to do with the fact that no mainstream conservative figure like a Ben Shapiro or a Steven Crowder has reviewed it or interviewed him. They're ignoring him, even though his politics are totally aligned with theirs, because they don't want to platform someone who was once a racist. National Review hasn't even reviewed The Origins of Woke.. and they reviewed Christopher Caldwell's Age of Entitlement!

So, here are three questions I have in no particular order.

  1. Why do you think the book isn't doing gangbusters?
  2. Why do you think Hanania's book is being ignored by the big players in conservative media?
  3. Is there a chance that even if the book remains obscure, its ideas will make their way to the people who matter?

best-seller lists are close to meaningless and easily manipulated by publishers . Of course Levin's book sold more. That should not be a surprise. It has a much bigger marketing push.

On a similar note, does anybody know of any comprehensive books on the real "origins of woke?" Is it really just the Frankfurt school writ large?

It's not really Frankfurt school.

Civil Rights Act precedes 'woke'. It'd have led to the same things basically even without Frankfurt school.

And I don't think CRA was much inspired by FS.

Civil Rights Act precedes 'woke'.

I don't think it does. You had people working on these ideas even before World War II.

same date it to the Protestant Revolution

You don't think it was law?

Part of it is that Hanania reveals the fact that the "conservative" establishment has been complicit to cultural/ethnic far left extremism.

This fake conservative establishment which failed to stop it and in part supported this, and even further radicalized in such leftist direction don't want to stop and certainly don't and want their dirty laundry come to the surface. To be fair, not everyone on the modern historical right has been complicit. It wasn't unanimous.

There are genuine right wingers who might agree with Hanania that are part of the right. Not everyone gets to have his book succeed just cause his book makes a valid point. Hanania's also been attacking the right on various issues so he might had lost some of his popularity from that. His name recognition might not be that great too. Maybe some are also afraid to promote him due to the relation with "Hoste".

The "heterodox" University of Austin promising freedom of speech which was founded by a group including Bari Weiss cancelled Hanania, which is what I expected from any place associated in such manner with Bari Weiss.

The allowed stupid discourse that they originally promoted is telling: https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1495204921141915650#m

So there is a deliberate agenda by some malicious gatekeepers who are suppressing asking the right questions which can lead to genuine opposition. And part of this suppression includes promoting a focus on areas that don't challenge things. And leftists who don't want to oppose other leftists. But if you are like that don't talk about freedom of speech and heterodox ideas. Let those for the actual heterodox. Unless the goal is to subvert opposition to orthodoxy by having the heterodox also be orthodox.

Is there a chance that even if the book remains obscure, its ideas will make their way to the people who matter?

I do think it is having some positive influence. But there are entrenched elites who can't be convinced out of positions they haven't reasoned themselves into. Some of the people who matter will be more likely to pay attention and put pressure, or even replace some of said entrenched elites.

Well hasn't Hanania said he doesn't value free speech for its own sake, and that he's surprised that conservatives get away with as much speech as they do, because if he were in charge he wouldn't let progressives get away with anything?

Why does the establishment right do this? Because they have a deep-seated need to believe they're good people, and aren't willing to risk an existential crisis?

Bari Weiss was willing to do an event with Anna Khachiyan, who, from what I can tell, is almost as controversial as Hanania now (despite being super mainstream a few years ago).

Define "establishment right". If we're talking about the old patrician wing of the Republican Party (IE the stereotypical "big business conservatives") the answer is essentially what @FirmWeird said.

More pointedly, Progressive Democrats want cheap goods and a permanent underclass they can exploit. Big Business Conservative types want cheap goods and cheap labor. Thier interests are aligned, and thus so are their policies.

That said, you can only shit on your constituents for so long before your constituents decide to light a fire under your ass. This is how we got the Tea Party, Trump, and now the first Speaker of the House to be ousted by his own party. As I've written on before, the GOP's been in a state of low-intensity Civil War since about 2010, a civil war that the patrician wing has been losing, which another reason why the Cheney's McCarthy's and Brooks' have been aligning more and more with the Democrats in recent years.

Thier interests are aligned, and thus so are their policies.

But we can simply observe that they are not aligned on an enormous range of issues. Look at the voting relationships here in the 113th Congress. The most progressive Democrats have almost non-existent cross-over with moderate Republicans, even more so for 'ordinary' (i.e. not unusually moderate) 'business' Republicans. Sanders shared essentially no votes with any Republican except Collins and Murkowski (if I'm looking at the thing right) and it's pretty much the same story with every 'progressive' Senator, even some with no particular reputation as being on the left of the party. It's true of Feinstein, Schumer, Stabenow, Murphy etc. etc. Conversely, Sessions has almost no shared votes with pretty much any Democrat. I can't find the equivalent diagram for more recent years, but I see no reason to believe there has been any convergence between the 'patrician' wing of the Republicans and Democrats given that the trend up to then was in the opposite direction.

Edit: forgot to link to the thing; http://static.davidchouinard.com/congress/

This is how we got the Tea Party

So when you say this, remember that Tea Party Senators overwhelmingly voted with their patrician colleagues.

Like @greyenlightenment, you are wrong. Who do you expect me to believe? the liberal media, or my lying eyes?

How do you divine that voting records == media?

This isn't liberal media, this is simply the fact of voting patterns in the Senate.

my lying eyes?

Jesus this cliché should be banned. Code for 'I don't have to substantiate my views with any evdience'. As a wise man once said, if you cannot measure it, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind. Why should I accept your unevidenced reckonings over the relevant facts?

also, the Tea party was about opposition to Obama's 2009 stimulus and Obamacare, not labor issues or immigration

No it wasn't, it was about opposition to TARP.

Why does the establishment right do this? Because they have a deep-seated need to believe they're good people, and aren't willing to risk an existential crisis?

Because if they did not do this they would lose not just their jobs but the financial patronage networks that keep them living the good life. The structural problems that a lot of their constituency complain about are also responsible for the flow of comfortable sinecures and corporate donations that keep the establishment right living easy lives. This is why establishment republicans love to talk about cutting down on illegal immigration while simultaneously encouraging more and more immigrants to come in, for instance.

Because Hanania’s book isn’t aimed at the lowest common denominator.

I will juxtapose it against another rat-adjacent book that is targeting normies : Tim Urban's - What's our problem

It came out earlier this year and has done much better than Hanania's book seems to be doing. It seems to be doing as well as Freddie Deboer, Cenk Uygur, Bill OReily & Chris Rufo , stabilizing around rank 60-80 in the competitive social sciences and political commentary categories... which is to say, pretty damn good.

He (edit - Hanania) isn't loud enough for a large enough cult following. He isn't famous enough to sell his own books. He doesn't have friends in the right places. And the title sucks.

If someone makes a Tim Urban style version of Hanania's book, I'll bet you that it sells.

the publisher drives the sales, and secondly, the size of the author's personal platform. the book can be shit and still a sell a lot if the publisher does a big enough push and the author has a large platform, as Bongino and Hannity does. Only word of mouth and quality determines how much staying power and legacy it has a over the long-term, in which it's obviously too soon to tell for Hanania's book.

He doesn't have friends in the right places

Really? He has the most viewed TED Talk of all time and has a ton of friends in high places, like Elon Musk and the All-in podcast folks, just to name a couple. Urban is orders of magnitude more well connected than Hanania, and has been at it for almost a decade.

He isn't loud enough for a large enough cult following. He isn't famous enough to sell his own books. He doesn't have friends in the right places. And the title sucks.

I was talking about Hanania.

Woosh cool my bad.

oof, my first time being captain obvious

such is life.

Why do you think the book isn't doing gangbusters?

To some extent, "best-selling" is more about a pretty specific type of sales, rather than who's doing gangbusters, though I expect this isn't the biggest difference here. I don't even pretend to understand what drives mainstream (or conservative) purchasing. Separately, modern distribution policies have made book purchases less directly necessary to understand claims.

Why do you think Hanania's book is being ignored by the big players in conservative media?

For the big players, there's two problems. The first and most prominent is that Mainstream Conservatives don't platform a "former white nationalist", or VDare fans, or former really clear racists, by definition and by practice. This was part of why Spencer getting a platform on CNN appalled so many, but it's also why the Bundies got dropped like rocks. And it's been explicit in at least part of his case. But there's a second, and less obvious problem.

Reagan had a rule "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican". This has always been better held to in principle than in the breach -- Reagan himself rather famously -- but the as-applied version of this holds that if you're In The Club or want to be In The Club, you must be polite about those In The Club, and there's an often-dizzying variety of norms for what exactly 'polite' means. And if you're not sure, you're outside of the club.

That's... not actually specific to Republicans or mainstream conservatives; quite a lot of organizations do this, with their own separate rules and expectations. It's obnoxious, because it can quite quickly lead to issues like the Abilene Paradox, for flawed positions inside the organization to go unchallenged, or allow bad actors inside the organization to flourish uncriticized. But it's supposed to stop organizations from turning into (or at least being obvious externally as) giant balls of infighting.

And Hanania has made a name for himself for... charitably, being a pugnacious righty, and more honestly, trolling.

Is there a chance that even if the book remains obscure, its ideas will make their way to the people who matter?

Are there any new big ideas? Seeing the Civil Rights Act as having been expanded far beyond its original grounds and to extents that interfere with constitutional rights dates back to Goldwater, if not before. Originalist interpretations predated Bostock -- though in turn I'll point who wrote Bostock.

TracingWoodgrains highlights Hanania for seeing the logistical and pipeline problems that TracingWoodgrains believes are core to the long-term (non)viability of the GOP (though I'm skeptical). And maybe that's closer? But I don't think he's argued it to the point where it's 'obvious' in hindsight, and that's usually core to really having your perspective take off.

A really persuasive work doesn't just present a plausible position, but gives you reasons that you should have believed beforehand.

The publisher plays a big role in this. Pre-orders drive best seller placement, and those orders are returned or pulped. The idea is the media attention and bandwagon effect of being at the top of the best-seller list creates its own momentum and hence organic sales. His book was never intended or expected to sell that many copies.

10/10 post. This is why I come here. Thank you. I would also like to add that if conservatives won't forgive former racists, they're conceding that the only path to salvation is to become a full-on leftist. That's already what leftists believe, but it's sad that the right is giving in.

Also, who are the Bundies?

A Family of Anti-BLM Protestors back when BLM still stood for the Bureau of Land Managment. Famously(infamously?) got into multiple armed stand-offs with Federal Agents and winning. IE not a story the Jedi liberal Media would tell you. ;-)

Long story short they'd been getting a lot of positive press in Conservative Christian circles, and seemed on the verge of breaking-out into the mainstream before the elder Bundy put his foot in it.

Thank you for the compliment.

Thank you. I would also like to add that if conservatives won't forgive former racists, they're conceding that the only path to salvation is to become a full-on leftist.

I don't think it's that they won't forgive former racists, and to some extent they'll often highlight them in the specific context of repenting, but they're not going to trust again. Whether that makes a difference or not depends pretty heavily on what you're measuring and how important public recognition by mainstream or conservatives are for you.

Also, who are the Bundies?

A family of Nevada ranchers, best known for the 2014 standoff and 2016 Malheur Wildlife occupation. There was about a week where they were controversial but sometimes lauded among the mainstream right, but comments by the elder Bundy lead to them pretty quickly falling out of grace.

I would also like to add that if conservatives won't forgive former racists, they're conceding that the only path to salvation is to become a full-on leftist.

Well, they're not forgiving well-known public figures with a googleable history of overt racism.

This is a rather small number of people, and it's easier to just promote a new talking head to prominence than to redeem a tarnished one. That's show business, I'm afraid.

Those restrictions don't apply to voters, or anyone else who isn't going to embarrass them.

To some extent, "best-selling" is more about a pretty specific type of sales, rather than who's doing gangbusters, though I expect this isn't the biggest difference here. I don't even pretend to understand what drives mainstream (or conservative) purchasing. Separately, modern distribution policies have made book purchases less directly necessary to understand claims.

This is true of things like the NYT best-selling list. Perhaps Hanania or his publisher didn't want to pay the specialists who game the list.

Amazon's bestseller lists are based on aggregate sales though, and it's not doing well there either. In the narrow category of "cultural policy" it's currently ranked at #7. In the broad category of politics and social sciences it's not even in the top 100, ranking behind oldies like The King James Version of the Bible (#13), The Gift of Fear (#58), and Frankenstein (#80),

Hanania

Not sure how it generalizes but I read single thing written by Hanania. It was on topic that I know relatively well and what Hanania wrote was atrociously offensively bad take and extreme misinterpretation of reality.

What article was that?

People like to say things like this about Hanania on Twitter, probably because he's kind of obnoxious, and never seem to back it up, which you can see even in this thread. It's suspiciously like people who claim "The Bell Curve" has been debunked, but then never provide specific arguments beyond nitpicking.

While he wants to avoid the specific example he had in mind, do_something did give an example that's pretty humiliating for Hanania.

He found a single tweet and nitpicked it to death. Russia has not conquered Ukraine in a year and a half. I'm not sure why we're supposed to believe they are a serious threat to Poland and Germany. Because Hanania is bad and dumb? Because they're going to start a nuclear war for no reason?

He found a single tweet and nitpicked it to death.

Note that I was not looking for dumb comment, I commented on the first one I found.

I'm not sure why we're supposed to believe they are a serious threat to Poland and Germany.

"military threat" is not the same as "will definitely invade"

Also https://www.themotte.org/post/695/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/144937?context=8#context - someone not aware that nuclear-armed ICBM have military use, that cannot be fully neutered by currently existing weapons and defence systems, should not comment on modern warfare.

He avoided giving the one he had in mind for purposes of anonymity.

I'm not sure why we're supposed to believe they are a serious threat to Poland and Germany. Because Hanania is bad and dumb? Because they're going to start a nuclear war for no reason?

We're supposed to believe that military strength is not a 1:1 reflection of a country's GDP, and that ICBMs are a military threat. That they have no reason to use them was not a part of Hanania's argument.

Not the one you asked, and I don't recall the specific articles as all three were over a year ago, but I recall experiencing a similar reaction to mutiple other things he's written. One was something regarding the history of censorship, another was about foreign policy/defense procurement with regards to NATO, and another involved machine learning. In all three cases he managed to demonstrate both an ignorance of history, and a general lack of understanding of the things he was attempting describe.

This is setting aside the fact that his online persona tends to read as some sort of caricature. It's like someone is trying to resurrect Stephen Colbert's old Daily Show act, but without Colbert's insight or familiarity with the source material.

One was something regarding the history of censorship, another was about foreign policy/defense procurement with regards to NATO, and another involved machine learning. In all three cases he managed to demonstrate both an ignorance of history, and a general lack of understanding of the things he was attempting describe.

Can you find these?

Can you?

replied in https://www.themotte.org/post/695/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/144860?context=8#context (it grown overly large to repeat it)

Don't leave it at that! What was the topic, what was the take, and how was it wrong?

Sadly I commented about it elsewhere under my real name so prefer to remain vague about it :(

But I searched <Richard Hanania Poland> (to have less specific topic) and found this gem as the first match: https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1506652611851685889

Poland is 4 times wealthier than Ukraine with similar population. Germany is 12 times wealthier with twice the population.

This should end the idea that Russia is a military threat to "Europe" once and for all.

They could threaten the Baltics but that's the theoretical limit.

where he

(1) compares wealth of country fighting but not strictly winning with Russia and implies that larger wealth would be definitely enough to crush Russia so strongly that it would not be a military threat (what is nonsense: maybe ratio is 20 or 50 or 100)

(2) forgets that it is not computer game where wealth directly translates to military power (see his own example, Germany - is he really claiming that German military is 12 times more powerful than Ukrainian one?)

(3) forgets that being military nuisance and threat is achievable with vastly lower expense if you focus on it, as Russia did (see also North Korea)

(3b) Russia has ICBMs and nukes. Entity having ICBMs and nukes is a military threat, potential targets being wealthy are not causing nuclear weapons to stop working.

Even if Europe would spend the same share of money and effort on military as Russia does, then Russia still would be a military threat (unless 100% effective anti-ICBM and anti-cruise missile systems would be created and deployed to cover entire Europe, which is dubious)

(3c) Russia still has enormous piles of weaponry and ability to produce more

(4) Has "This should end the idea that Russia is a military threat to "Europe" once and for all." and directly after that has "They could threaten the Baltics" which are part of Europe.

(5) Wait, is he claiming that Russia is unable to threaten Ukraine? Which is decidedly in Europe (lets assume he means EU by "Europe" to be charitable in interpreting it).

Also, claim that Ukraine per capita is only 6 times less wealthier than Germany is suspect to me. It looks like comparison of GDP with PPP adjustment (raw GDP has 11 times difference). But it is not wealth, that is just income. Accumulated income (=wealth) of Germany is much greater than he claims. What ironically makes his justification weaker than in reality.

Overall, not as egregious or problematic as other case that soured me on him - but not something that wants to me read his book, on topic where I am less able to spot suspect claims.

Sadly I commented about it elsewhere under my real name so prefer to remain vague about it :(

That's a shame, but I understand.

(2) forgets that it is not computer game where wealth directly translates to military power (see his own example, Germany - is he really claiming that German military is 12 times more powerful than Ukrainian one?)

This is an interesting one, because on hand yeah, that's bad, but on the other GDP fetishism is a real problem among our intellectual classes. I almost don't want to blame him for taking prevailing theories at face value.

That part alone would be less problematic but claiming

This should end the idea that Russia is a military threat to "Europe" once and for all.

about country that has nukes is hilarious. And claiming that Ukraine and Baltics are not in Europe.

(noone is obligated to post geopolitic hot takes on Twitter - but if he is doing them I am happy to judge him based on that)

(also, there is reason why I am not posting here under my real name. I post my professional stuff separately in way that is not mingled with posts on topics where I do not have 20+ year of expert knowledge)

Why do you think the book isn't doing gangbusters?

Personal opinion only: Hanania isn't as smart as he thinks he is, he comes across as an awful pain in the... neck, and he's a big fish in a small pond but when moved to a bigger pond, he's too obscure to make it big. Plus everyone and their dog is doing anti-woke stuff now so he's lost in the crowd. I don't like the guy because I find him off-putting.

Take this snippet from a comment over on ACX:

Someone asked him what % of US GDP he thought was being sent to Ukraine. He replied:

"At least 40% last time I checked."

Opinion is divided on: (1) meant seriously? (in which case he is wrong by an astounding margin so how can you take him seriously on other claims?) (2) trolling (yeah but only funny in his own view and too easy to mistake for him being serious) (3) ha-ha but serious, that is, being deliberately ridiculous in order to draw attention to the problem (see what I said about coming across as a pain in the neck).

So if even readers of his tweets can't figure out if he's being serious or not, sarcastic or not, then he's not going to cut it when it comes to NYT Bestseller List time.

Personal opinion only: Hanania isn't as smart as he thinks he is, he comes across as an awful pain in the... neck, and he's a big fish in a small pond but when moved to a bigger pond, he's too obscure to make it big. Plus everyone and their dog is doing anti-woke stuff now so he's lost in the crowd. I don't like the guy because I find him off-putting.

Then that would imply Hannity and Levin are geniuses compared to Hanania , which they are not. They simply have bigger platforms and bigger marketing push by publisher, hence more sales. Hanania knows he can make more $ with substack and having a large readership who pay $5+ a month recurring than a book that is a blip on the radar and forgotten.

The 40% quote is obviously a joke to get engagement. Hanania does little twitter trolls semi-frequently, and believing US spending on Ukraine is exactly the kind of populist conservative idiocy he loves attacking. And 40% is way too high to be a serious belief if you know what a gdp is.

Yes. This other tweet makes it even more obvious:

For the cost of one year of aid to Ukraine you can

  • Build every homeless American a two story mansion
  • Keep social security solvent through Q3 of 2094
  • Double number of bases around China

And still have enough left over for major tax cuts!

Republicans are just saying enough.

Then it is "haha, I was only pretending to be retarded" type of trolling that is (1) low quality humour (2) not useful form of commentary.

The fundamental problem with pretty much everything of his that I've ever seen is that two possibilities immediately present themselves.

  • He's trolling, in which case engaging with him is a waste of time.

  • He's a complete idiot, in which case engaging with him is a waste of time.

In either case the conclusion is the same, and the old " ha-ha but serious" defense just marks him as being both a liar and a coward in addition to the above.

Hanania does little twitter trolls semi-frequently

For me it is an ideal way to ensure that I will not read anything he wrote, especially on topics where I lack knowledge to spot bad jokes.

The 40% quote is obviously a joke to get engagement.

Obvious to whom? People who are already into his stuff?

That makes sense. I still think his book is significantly more important than any other anti-woke book, though, so it's too bad he's gotten in the way of his own success.

Why do you think the book isn't doing gangbusters

Because the thesis of the book is wrong. News recently came out that 94% of new jobs went to PoC in the US, thanks to corporate pledges in the wake of the BLM riots. A straight reading of the civil rights law would have prevented that, so clearly the rulebook isn't as important as Hanania claims. The people who claim that the system is run on anti-White animus are correct and Hanania is wrong.

The actual statistic is that the 2021 hiring (for S&P 100 companies) was 45% white, 20% Hispanic, 12% Asian, and 18% black. This does seem like underrepresentation of whites, but it's not as severe as 94%.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/

The year after Black Lives Matter protests, the S&P 100 added more than 300,000 jobs — 94% went to people of color.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/bloomberg-flubs-data-for-bombshell-report-that-only-6-of-new-corporate-hires-are-white

A Daily Wire analysis of the same numbers examined by Bloomberg found that, in reality, the demographics of hiring figures for 2021 were barely different from previous years. The percentage of new jobs that went to whites was likely about 46%, eight points below the 54% white makeup of companies’ existing workforces. That’s to be expected given demographic changes in the United States since the time that the currently-retiring baby boomer generation first entered the workforce.

Though Bloomberg spun the tale as a victory for Black Lives Matter, blacks benefited the least of any racial group from the slight decline in whites, according to the analysis. The percentage of black hires was up from the status quo by 1%, while Asians were up by 2%, and Hispanics were up by 4%. That’s also explained by demographics — decades ago, when baby boomers entered the workforce, the U.S. was mostly white and black; in the decades since, the numbers of Hispanics and Asians in the United States have increased.

Here’s how Bloomberg got the story wrong, and how numbers actually work.

Bloomberg based its analysis on a form companies file to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission listing the racial breakdown of their U.S. employees. The forms are filed annually, but they don’t break out stats for employees hired that year; they just provide the total headcount of all employees by race.

Bloomberg, reaching for a way to isolate recent numbers, focused on the fact that companies increased their cumulative headcount by some 320,000 in 2021. Then they made a flawed leap of logic: They took the increase of minorities across the entire workforce, and divided it by the number of new positions — not the number of actual hires, which overwhelmingly come from replacing people who leave the company. In short, they got the denominator wrong.

“Bloomberg obtained 2020 and 2021 data for 88 S&P 100 companies and calculated overall US job growth at those firms…. Overall, these companies increased their headcount by 323,094 employees in 2021,” the outlet wrote. “Bloomberg then analyzed the racial makeup of those additional workers, finding that 94% of them were people of color.”

But it’s not possible from the data to say that those additional “people of color” took the 320,000 newly created positions. Most of them were almost certainly hired as part of a much larger group: replacements for existing jobs that were vacated by retirees or people changing jobs.

Thanks. I did not know that US statistics make a difference between new positions and replacements. In my country, they are all grouped together.

There is no straight reading of the Civil Rights Act and there hasn't been since 1979.

That statistic is net gain in employment. If 100 whites are hired, 20 blacks are hired. 99 whites retire and 10 blacks retire. Then 10/11 or 91% of net jobs created went to blacks but the hiring situation isn't nearly so dire.

You should also try actually reading the book. He goes into detail about how it is not the plain reading of the laws that matters but a series of precedent setting cases and executive decisions that have shaped their enforcement.

News recently came out that 94% of new jobs went to PoC in the US, thanks to corporate pledges in the wake of the BLM riots.

That sounds very implausible. do you have a cite?

[EDIT] - A quick googling provides this

Or, more precisely, what the pool of new workers minus the pool of departing workers looked like. Net change is what we’re able to see. It’s not that 94% of S&P 100 hires in 2021 were people of color, for example, it’s that when you look at S&P 100 employment totals after a year of arrivals and departures, people of color accounted for 94% of the net increase.

...If I'm understanding this properly, this doesn't seem to support your statement. POC have significantly higher unemployment, and reducing POC unemployment specifically doesn't seem like a bad thing. Unless we assume that the labor market is zero-sum, that POC getting any job at all means a non-POC doesn't get any job at all, it doesn't seem that POC being 94% of the net increase is proof of descrimination.

Not to mention that because of different age distributions, most retirees each year are non-Hispanic whites. The WaPo article also says that 90% of people who entered the workforce in the last year were non-Hispanic whites. So that 94% claim sure seems to be "figures don’t lie, but liars figure."

  1. The question (which I don’t know) is whether the young white population is the same size as the older white population. If so, then you’d expect new hires to roughly equal departures. On the other hand, if the younger population is larger, then you’d be hiring more POC relative to whites.

  2. That per se isn’t a problem if the POC are more qualified compared to whites. However in my experience at a large firm we have relaxed standards for POC hires (and relaxed standards once hired) and we know the traditional tools to determine quality at more entry position are corrupted by college level affirmative action.

The question (which I don’t know) is whether the young white population is the same size as the older white population.

Percentage of white population is decreasing over time, so no, the young white population is smaller.

As long as you're counting by the one drop rule, yes.

I was under the impression that this was the result of US census data, which I'm pretty sure was not compiled via the one drop rule. I'm open to being corrected if that impression is false.

Slightly complicated.

Census is based on self-ID. To the extent that the culture at large uses the one drop rule to define people - which it mostly does, in practice - the census will do the same.

Next layer of complexity is that the census allows you to select as many racial ids as you want, so you can say you are a white black hispanic asian if you want to.

This leads to the situation where people reporting on the census can parse categories in multiple ways, such as 'any white' (white plus other categories) vs. 'white alone' (white and no other categories).

Usually when someone cites a number that shows shrinking white populations, they are citing the 'white alone' number without mentioning that they are doing so to their audience. Which is about 18% lower than the 'any white' number.

The vast majority those people are Hispanics who aren't white and no amount of gaslighting about "White Hispanics" will change that.

I don’t think that’s the right metric. Let’s say there were 100 people and 80 were white and 20 were black. Full employment.

Now there are 120 people and 90 are white and 30 are black. If jobs scale with population, there would still be more total number of white jobs even if the percentage of white jobs decreased.

Looking at the population pyramid of non-hispanic whites in the US, shows the absolute population declining with age. Peak NHW population was 60 in 2020 with a smaller echo at 30 and from the 30 down it's in decline.

Yeah, this statistic is meaningless. You can even quite easily have PoC taking 120% of all new jobs created if you shift the numbers slightly. But that would just reveal its absurdity to everyone, so because this number was in the small band between almost 100% and 100% people decided to run with it.

  1. Because Hanania's style is grating and he is physically unattractive in a way that makes you think he's a necromancer or something like that.

  2. Because of his scandal, and the fact that it really isn't that new or compelling of an idea.

  3. You have this backwards. Clarence Thomas has already thought often of striking the CRA entirely using originalism. People less bold and interesting, yet still holding high esteem in conservative legal circles, have already conducted high level meetings about how to do that without letting hotels hang "No Asians" signs. The question is what is the right case, what is the right court, and how to avoid the problem of the media lying about the outcome.

#3 is very hopeful to hear. Thank you.

Clarence Thomas has already thought often of striking the CRA entirely using originalism.

Can you elaborate on his theory? Because the most common argument I hear is based on freedom of association, which is not really an originalist argument.

The CRA is unconstitutional because there is no clause in the Constitution authorizing it. Simple as that.

I asked you what Thomas's theory was, not for your personal opinion. Given that the Supreme Court unanimously held that that the CRA is indeed constitutional, you can perhaps understand why the opinion of a layman that asserts otherwise, without addressing the rationale of the Supreme Court's determination, is of limited value.

The plain meaning of the enforcement clause of the 14th amendment would authorise federal civil rights laws, although SCOTUS found otherwise during the Jim Crow era.

Only those applying against governments. Not the more expansive ones affecting private companies and individuals.

I'm not sure I see how, given that the 14th Amendment only limits state actors, while the CRA applies to private actors.

I'm not sure if this is Thomas's, but an originalist interpretation of the Commerce Clause would invalidate pretty much all federal regulation of intrastate activity. The Commerce Clause only gives Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce, not anything which might conceivably affect interstate commerce.

Common carrier.

I vaguely remember someone mentioning Hanania a week or so ago, blogging about how most books are rubbish, or outdated and not worth reading, while his book is unusually good, and absolutely deserves people's attention. That was the only other time I remember hearing his name. It looks like it was discussing this post https://www.richardhanania.com/p/the-case-for-reading-one-particular

A cursory look suggests that Levine vilifies his and the readers' outgroup, and probably praises the in-group (conservatives love America! Probably...).

On superficial skimming, Hanania seems to have mixed feelings about the outgroup (the laws are structured to incentivize wokeness in the workplace?), and also mixed feelings about the Conservative in-group, and likes to dunk on them: https://www.richardhanania.com/p/populism-makes-worse-people

I think most people have terrible views on social and political issues. It’s not that they disagree with me, but rather that they don’t make the bare minimum effort to have opinions that are logically consistent or humane. The stronger they feel about their views, in general the dumber they are. It seems to me that most people get into the world of ideas because they’re compensating for some kind of deep personal insecurity by imagining a world where their status would be higher.

This is probably fine if he wants to talk with his very specific readership and X bubble, but it's hardly surprising the unwashed masses aren't much interested in buying his book. You're probably right and there's more to him, but he comes across as something of a prick, which is all it takes to not buy his book, since not engaging with a book is the default.

I vaguely remember someone mentioning Hanania a week or so ago, blogging about how most books are rubbish, or outdated and not worth reading, while his book is unusually good, and absolutely deserves people's attention. That was the only other time I remember hearing his name. It looks like it was discussing this post https://www.richardhanania.com/p/the-case-for-reading-one-particular

You aren't thinking of this post, based on his The case against (most) books piece? I kinda get the impression he wrote that 'one particular book' article partially in response to critics of the 'case against most books' article. Either that or he wrote it on a backwards bike, and the backpedalling just seeped in.

Yes, you're right, I meant that one. Sorry, between that and misspelling Mark Levin's name, it looks like I was too tired and shouldn't have been posting.

It seems to me that most people get into the world of ideas because they’re compensating for some kind of deep personal insecurity by imagining a world where their status would be higher.

Which sets him up nicely for "So, Richard, why did you get into the world of ideas?" 'f you have strong opinions, you're probably stupid, except for me who is the exception who can have strong opinions' is not a good look. Even worse look is "I don't have strong opinions, I just say whatever shit will annoy any particular group at a particular time for the lulz and to show off my big brain superiority". Which is it, Richard?

A cursory look suggests that Levine vilifies his and the readers' outgroup,

Is this copied from somewhere?

No, that was just my impression, looking at the cover of his book. I haven't heard much about him, but if I saw the book on a stack somewhere and bought it, it would be with the expectation of hearing about how Republicans are the Real Americans, and Democrats HATE America, but Real America is admirable (and, anyway, even when it's not admirable, it's still ours), and the Democrats are wrong to hate it and try to foist their Marxism upon it, bending it all out of shape.

That's an uninformed opinion, though. If I remember maybe I'll ask my parents, who do actually buy books in that genera, if they have an opinion on either Hanania or Levine.

Oh, my mistake. I didn’t see the mention of Levin in the OP, and I thought “Levine” was someone you’d injected. Maybe Matt Levine?

No, I understand what you meant now.

Mark Levin has a radio show that lots and lots of people still listen to (1.5 million daily was the most correct-seeming number from a quick Google, but it could be an over or underestimate), especially the type of right-leaning person who still buys books (old people), while RH mostly gets into arguments on Twitter, has a successful Substack, but really has little reach in normie land.

I think sometimes people forget that because of things like Substack, Patreon, etc., somebody can have a very healthy living, while not having much reach. Like, I don't knoe his Substack numbers, but he could have a healthy six-figure income, and have an audience of basically nothing, politically.

In addition to this there's the simple issue of numeracy and scale. Even if we're generous and assume that Hanania's substack has a regular readership of 425,000 people in addition to the 74k that follow him on twitter, that's still less than a tenth of the number that tune into Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson on a weekly basis, and less than a fiftieth of what Rush Limbaugh was pulling at his peak.

true, but a typical RH follower probably has more weight than a Tucker follower. RH has a comparably small audience but he seems to have captured the attention of important people.

Maybe, but an order of magnitude or more? color me skeptical.

I've heard his radio show a few times. Maybe an hour on total. Straining myself to be charitable, I'd call it unhinged right wing ranting.

And I say that as someone who listens to conservative radio shows five days a week. On the spectrum of thoughtful commentary to unhinged stream of consciousness; we have Armstrong and Getty to Mark Levin

It’s unhinged ranting but it’s unhinged ranting within the boomer talk radio tradition, it’s not “edgy right” stuff like you’d see on Twitter.

There are more boomercons in the suburbs and exurbs who are happy listening to Levin for an hour a day and may buy his book than there are ‘intellectual’ rightists in Silicon Valley or NYC who follow Hanania.

There is a tremendous amount of luck required for a (non-celebrity) writer to write a best-selling book.

The bestseller lists are manipulated for palatability to people publishing them.

Everyone knows that, I'm surprised only one commenter pointed that out.

Even Reddit(!) knows it.

Example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/28/der-spiegel-finis-germania-rolf-peter-sieferle-bestseller-list

I recall something like that happening in the US. The list are meaningless. And given how Amazon refuses to distribute certain authors for political reasons, while being okay with the most outrageous pornography, I'd doubt their purported sales data are very good either.

i read that becoming a best-seller for non-NYTs in non-fiction is surprisingly cheap if placement does not matter. maybe only a few thousand copies need to be pre-ordered . NYTs fiction is way harder though

Ben Shapiro says that we should just argue people into adopting our views because it'll suddenly work, even though we've been trying for years and it hasn't worked.

It hasn't worked in the sense that views critical of wokeness have not come to dominate society. However, it has worked in the sense that it has successfully convinced probably millions of people to be critical of wokeness who otherwise would not have. In short, critics of wokeness would be doing worse if they were not trying to argue people into adopting their views. Arguing people into their views so effectively that their views would come to dominate society is probably just an unrealistic goal.

As for Hanania's book, I doubt that more than a small fraction of his target book-buying audience knows about his past alter ego. Probably people, even those who are curious about questions of wokeness, do not spend enough time in online political spaces to have heard of it. Likewise, I doubt that most of the target audience follows Hanania on Twitter and is aware of the many ways in which he makes fun of right-wingers.

I think that his book is probably just selling/not selling for the same reasons as why other similar books sell or do not sell.

I think that the title is alright but not great. It is kind of boring, but it is not a turn-off. I doubt it moves the needle much one way or the other.

It's also possible that the book's fortunes will improve over time. This has happened to, for example, many movies.

Note: I have not actually read the book, I just like reading Hanania's online stuff from time and enjoy how he makes both left-wingers and right-wingers seethe. I'm not on board with all of his ideas, either. For example, lately he has been going on a tear of supporting free-market solutions, but I have some doubts that this approach would have been the best way of resolving the Great Depression. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, however.

It hasn't worked in the sense that views critical of wokeness have not come to dominate society.

I mean, they took the white house and supreme court and the majority of state assemblies, that's pretty dominant.

It hasn't worked in the sense that views critical of wokeness have not come to dominate society. However, it has worked in the sense that it has successfully convinced probably millions of people to be critical of wokeness who otherwise would not have. In short, critics of wokeness would be doing worse if they were not trying to argue people into adopting their views. Arguing people into their views so effectively that their views would come to dominate society is probably just an unrealistic goal.

Has it though? Because I haven’t seen a widespread rejection of Woke beyond the already hostile conservative base. He’s basically a cheerleader as most public debaters and podcast personalities are— if you already agree, he is the guy who tells you you are right. But Shapiro and other debaters rarely get in front of normies let alone the woke left in order to be heard.

If we start the story with the beginning of the Great Awokening in c. 2012, then the orthodox left (actual Marxists like Freddie de Boer) starts pushing back against woke-stupid almost immediately - the first famous left-wing anti-woke essay is Exiting the Vampire Castle in November 2013 (which, incidentally, defends Russell Brand from charges of sexism - that didn't age well) - i.e. less than 2 years in. FdB was already blogging from a woke-sceptical left-wing perspective at that time, but he wasn't famous. Will Shetterly wrote Social Justice Warriors - do not engage - a book-length attack from the left on the woke-stupid take over of science fiction fandom - in 2014 in response to RaceFail. (I think the use of SJW as a perjorative probably traces back to Shetterly via Vox Day and Gamergate, but I am not sure). And 2016 vintage Bernie promotes a class-first leftism that is at least implicitly anti-woke, and is treated as such by wokists. Within the establishment left, Jonathan Haidt has been warning about this sort of thing since day one, and Matthew Yglesias has been openly heterodox on multiple occasions. The Harpers letter in 2020 may be the first time that left-wing opposition to woke-stupid makes the establishment listen.

If you go back to the 1990's era Political Correctness, then left-wing pushback against woke-stupid was very normal. You have Democratic presidential candidates and British Labour leaders publically calling out far-left PC idiocy in order to win elections.

Ben Shapiro says that we should just argue people into adopting our views because it'll suddenly work, even though we've been trying for years and it hasn't worked. Peter Brimelow says we should close the border and have white babies. Curtis Yarvin says that we should put a dictator in charge, or at least whatever FDR was. Caldwell says that we should repeal the Civil Rights Act, even though it's as much a part of our national identity at this point as the Constitution.

Build a parallel status economy.

Every social system should either work for us or not work at all. Actively attack enemy-held institutions by any means necessary.

reject and subvert systems that work against our interests. Deny their power, hamper their operations, refuse their legitimacy, appropriate or destroy their resources.

Focus on outcomes, not process. Process is for coordinating cooperation, and that is not a thing our present society is capable of maintaining.

The goal should be a breakdown of federal authority, and acceleration in the decay of existing systems of social control such as the media ecosystem, educational system, academia generally, the courts, and the federal bureaucracy. Delegitimizing these institutions in the eyes of as much of the public as possible is a good first step.

I took one semester of anthropology courses in college and that was enough to tell me I don't want to return to a hunter-gatherer level of civilization.

There are plenty of forests available to you if you do want that. Until then, please stop trying to destroy my civilization.

In the first place, the deconstruction and seizure of institutional power did not reduce us to hunter-gatherers when blues did it, so there's no reason it should do so were Reds to reciprocate.

Secondly, we were here first.

Secondly, we were here first

Given that the first Blues came over on the Mayflower, I doubt that.

Seriously, (unless you believe one of the more radical anti-semitic conspiracy theories) the rise of wokism did not involve a hostile takeover of any institutions - the top universities and most prestigious newspapers in America were run by Yankees and Quakers in 1776, and are run by Yankees, Quakers, and Yankee-aligned secular Jews now. If you do the genealogical research, you will find that most of the individuals in charge are drawn from the same families. (Descendants of PMC Holocaust-era refugees excepted). The rise of wokism (beginning with the Civil Rights movement and the Sexual Revolution, and continuing through 1990's PC and ultimately the current Great Awokening) happened by some combination of conversion and generational replacement. There are several important books still to be written about how and why this happened - Moldbug certainly has a book-length treatment spread over multiple long blog posts, but I don't think his thesis (on my reading, that Yankees were always like this, they just increased in power slowly until they they didn't have to compromise with reality any more) is correct, and his presentation leaves a lot to be desired.

It is worth remembering the background though - in the period 1945-75,

  • The atom bomb appeared to render everything we knew about war obsolete (and therefore most of what we knew about masculine virtue)
  • The combination of the pill and cheap antibiotics capable of treating the then-common STDs appeared to render everything we knew about sexual morality obsolete (and therefore most of what we knew about feminine virtue)
  • The mass adoption of fridges, gas cookers, and washing machines really did render everything we knew about domesticity obsolete (and therefore the rest of what we knew about feminine virtue)
  • The mass adoption of private cars really did render everything we knew about human geography obsolete (and therefore most of what we knew about well-functioning communities).
  • By-and-large, this was also the period where intelligent, educated people stopped actually believing their religion, even if they didn't abandon it altogether.

Some form of moral upheaval was probably inevitable.

Ive seen several of these types of posts from you but this time I feel compelled to say something. The motte seems to be one very rare place where people on the left and right can engage in intellectual cooperation with some semblance of a shared set of principles. These polemics against perceived enemies on the left, in a tone so radical and final, is just shitting on the public good here. Given what you've written here it's obviously pointless for anyone who might disagree to engage with you.

I cannot fathom why the community tolerates this kind of thing; certainly it would never tolerate any naked calls for the explicit demolition of conservative power structures from anyone left of center.

I cannot fathom why the community tolerates this kind of thing; certainly it would never tolerate any naked calls for the explicit demolition of conservative power structures from anyone left of center.

We absolutely would. We had marxbro and Impassionata and a few other hyper-leftists posting on the reddit site for a while - they eventually got permabanned not because they were advocating for "explicit demolition of conservative power structures" (which they absolutely were) but because they were incapable of being civil and just flat-out insulted anyone who didn't buy their premises. Do leftists who post here get reported, a lot? Yes, absolutely. Fortunately, the people who report everyone who disagrees with them are not mods and hopefully will never become mods.

@FCfromSSC is many things, but one thing he's not is impolite, and whatever you might think of our moderation policies, we very explicitly allow people to say things that would be considered "unacceptable in polite society" in most other places, as long as you are, well, polite about it. So yes, "Disenfranchise people I hate" is an allowable argument. "Accelerate until the system breaks" is an allowable argument. "People I hate are scum who should all die" is not an allowable argument. "I specifically wish harm on you" is not an allowable argument.

"People I hate are scum who should all die" is not an allowable argument. "I specifically wish harm on you" is not an allowable argument.

But there is always the low-grade sophistry or condescending remark that gets through that is not breaking the rules, but is in some ways worse by being personal and directed at the recipient, than just openly rude to a broader outgroup.

Generally speaking, if we see someone using "low-grade sophistry" or condescension directed at individuals, we will mod it. We don't get every single one, and we probably won't always agree with you about what should be modded.

You're the second person who has had to reach back literal years to find a relevant example from the left. Without access to those posts I cant evaluate whether they are a valid counterexample. Suffice to say im unconvinced by your assurances but I think we'll have to set that aside.

Presumably the rules by which you moderate are designed produce some outcomes and accomplish specific aims in the tenor and culture of this forum. Probably these are things like, ensure the average comment quality remains high, keep inflammatory and emotionally triggering posts to a minimum, encourage thoughtful and respectful engagement, etc.

One of the aims which I thought the rules were designed to achieve was establishing some cultural norms that encourage the consideration of cross-axis views in a charitable and good faith way. Correct me if I'm wrong.

FC's post contributes to the erosion this norm. By publicly advocating for the wholesale and categorical defection against liberal institutions, he is sending a signal that he believes cooperation with blue tribe is pointless. Therefore, why should I engage with him, a public defector? I simply won't. It would be irrational of me to do so. That is a potential cross axis engagement point that has been eliminated. And the more similar attitudes I see, the less likely I am to engage overall. And I think many people would respond the same way.

I think this forum highly benefits from this norm of cross-axis charity (luckily most have internalized it I believe). The alternative is an echo chamber, or one filled with ideologues. Even with a veneer of politeness, there is no value, for me at least, in a place like that.

You're the second person who has had to reach back literal years to find a relevant example from the left.

We had Impassionata (or a pretty good impersonator) here not long ago. We do occasionally have very leftist posters here making anti-right arguments. And yes, they get downvoted and reported a lot, but they only get modded when they get insulting.

One of the aims which I thought the rules were designed to achieve was establishing some cultural norms that encourage the consideration of cross-axis views in a charitable and good faith way. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're not entirely wrong that that's how we'd like conversations to go, but we are not a social project. @FCfromSSC and other people arguing that cooperation is pointless and the other tribe is bad and we have no common ground is allowable, because our "goal" is not to foster cooperation, it's just to host discussion and arguing of ideas.

FC's post contributes to the erosion this norm. By publicly advocating for the wholesale and categorical defection against liberal institutions, he is sending a signal that he believes cooperation with blue tribe is pointless. Therefore, why should I engage with him, a public defector? I simply won't.

Then don't. No one is required to engage with anyone.

And the more similar attitudes I see, the less likely I am to engage overall. And I think many people would respond the same way.

You aren't alone - @FCfromSSC has provoked similar reactions before. But if we took up your suggestion, we'd just be creating a different kind of echo chamber, where anyone whose views put off too many people gets silenced. We do have a bit of a problem here in that we are leaning ever-more rightward and fewer left-leaning people see much value in participating. I think that's a shame, but frankly (as a left-leaning person) I think the problem is not that "righties say unacceptable things" but "lefties cannot tolerate hearing things they don't like." That's certainly not a problem this forum can solve, but if as a left-leaning person you're going to insist that you won't participate if right-wingers get to say right-wing things... well, case in point.

it's just to host discussion and arguing of ideas.

Any joe can host a discussion website. Hosting a site where /good/, /quality/ discussion occurs is much harder, and that I think is the aim, is it not? And that absolutely does require some level of cooperation between participants engaged in that discussion.

I think the problem is not that "righties say unacceptable things" but "lefties cannot tolerate hearing things they don't like." That's certainly not a problem this forum can solve, but if as a left-leaning person you're going to insist that you won't participate if right-wingers get to say right-wing things... well, case in point.

Is this supposed to be some kind of gotcha? So lame. Anyway. Perhaps I did not articulate my point well enough, as it does not concern "things I don't like". I read a hundred things I don't like every time I sign on to this site, yet I singled out FC's post in particular. My point concerns behavior that erodes the norms that enable quality discussion.

But if we took up your suggestion, we'd just be creating a different kind of echo chamber, where anyone whose views put off too many people gets silenced

I don't see how. I am not advocating for modding conservative viewpoints in particular. You already taboo a good number of posting styles /and/ content in order to keep the quality of discussion high. You don't allow trolls, intentional sophistry, or, I believe, outright Holocaust denial. You of course don't allow name calling. For the sake of the argument, why not? Who are you to say that someone shouldn't be able to express their sincere and honest belief that person X has literal shit for brains? And if anyone gets offended by that, well, we can't silence that person just because he puts people off; the problem is people cannot tolerate hearing things they don't like, etc. There are of course real forums where this kind of free speech absolutism is a deeply held principle, but they are almost universally terrible, for obvious reasons.

You get to call the shots at the end of the day. I've said my case about as clearly as I can, so I'll leave it here. Thank you for at least considering what I have to say here.

You don't allow trolls, intentional sophistry, or, I believe, outright Holocaust denial.

Trolls and intentional sophistry (i.e., bad faith arguments), no, Holocaust denial, yes. Though outright stating "The Holocaust is a hoax" would be subject to our "inflammatory claims require proportionate evidence" rule, there is no explicit prohibition against Holocaust denial, and it has not been made a special case of unallowable arguments.

Who are you to say that someone shouldn't be able to express their sincere and honest belief that person X has literal shit for brains?

Because that would be unnecessarily antagonistic, which is against the rules. Attack the argument, not the person.

You get to call the shots at the end of the day. I've said my case about as clearly as I can, so I'll leave it here. Thank you for at least considering what I have to say here.

If I sound dismissive, it's not because I don't (somewhat) sympathize, but because I've had this argument so many times before. You are not the first or only one to object to accelerationist-posting. We're not going to prohibit it. We do take a close look at anything that veers towards fedposting.

One of the aims which I thought the rules were designed to achieve was establishing some cultural norms that encourage the consideration of cross-axis views in a charitable and good faith way.

That is in fact the point of the rules. You think I'm wrong, and further, you think the way I phrased my statements is unconducive to further discussion. That's true; I was replying to a specific comment in a specific way, not trying to have a conversation with the room generally. Is there elaboration or background I could offer that would allow more of an entry into conversation? Or would you like to lay out why you think what I proposed wouldn't work, or why it is objectionable on general principles?

By publicly advocating for the wholesale and categorical defection against liberal institutions, he is sending a signal that he believes cooperation with blue tribe is pointless.

I certainly do not think liberal institutions are worth preserving, and I do believe that attempting cooperation with Blue Tribe is pointless. If you're looking for conversation, either of those are a reasonable place to start. Why do you think liberal institutions should be preserved? How do you define "cooperation", and why are you confident that Red/Blue cooperation is possible?

Suffice to say im unconvinced by your assurances but I think we'll have to set that aside.

I, on the other hand, am starting to become unconvinced that you are unconvinced. If you were here long enough to remember Ozy's post, or the "downvotes aren't an 'I disagree' button" mantra, you should be familiar with Impassionata, with MarxBro, with the defenses for BLM riots, etc.

FC's post contributes to the erosion this norm. By publicly advocating for the wholesale and categorical defection against liberal institutions,

You are yet to argue that this constitutes a violation of the norm. Many ideologies argue for a wholesale and categorical defection against liberal institutions. Communism, monarchism, anarchism, uncle-Tedism... are all of these supposed to be off limits?

Therefore, why should I engage with him, a public defector? I simply won't.

Literally no one is asking you to.

I think this forum highly benefits from this norm of cross-axis charity (luckily most have internalized it I believe).

Charity does not mean you should unconditionally cooperate with liberal institutions. It means you shouldn't caricature what your opponent is saying, or that, out of all interpretations possible, you shouldn't pick the one that makes him look the worst.

The motte seems to be one very rare place where people on the left and right can engage in intellectual cooperation with some semblance of a shared set of principles.

I do not think the claim that "we" share principles is a supportable assumption, whether referring to you and me or the community generally. What the community shares is a standard of decorum.

These polemics against perceived enemies on the left...

What level of evidence would you require to consider removing the "perceived" from that phrase? If you're left-wing or Blue Tribe or a moderate or whatever, I'm happy to talk with you politely, but I'm pretty sure you're my enemy, and not in a loosey-goosey metaphorical sense. I'd give it better than 70% odds that you or a close friend or family member would experience net-positive qualia if they heard about me being fired from my job, imprisoned, seriously injured or killed due to a politically-colored incident.

This is not a claim that you or your friends or family are in any way unusual; the above applies to me, and without the caveat of friends and family. I observe that a lot of Americans legitimately hate each other across the red/blue divide with great fervor and zeal. I have consumed memes about bad things happening to Blues in politically-charged incidents, and experienced positive qualia. I think it's fairly obvious that most politically-aware people on both sides have. That is not a good thing, but it is a thing, it is not hard to find, and pretending it isn't real doesn't make it go away.

...in a tone so radical and final, is just shitting on the public good here.

The post I was replying to was putting forward the idea that Hanania is providing a viable path forward for, broadly speaking, "the Right". They listed off the other, obviously-non-viable alternatives. I listed the alternative they left off the list, which happens to be the most viable, easiest to execute given the givens, and probably one of the least destructive. Every tactic I listed has been a standard part of the political environment for decades. No violence is required. To the extent that laws can be said to exist in a meaningful sense, there's no need to break them. All that is needed is to recognize that our values are not, in fact, reconcilable, and that we are all better off if we stop pretending otherwise. It is better to divorce and then leave each other alone if we can, than to continue the endlessly-escalating fight for dominance.

Given what you've written here it's obviously pointless for anyone who might disagree to engage with you.

I don't think this is true. You are free to disagree if you like, and I will do my best to be polite and respectful in return.

I cannot fathom why the community tolerates this kind of thing; certainly it would never tolerate any naked calls for the explicit demolition of conservative power structures from anyone left of center.

You are free to argue for the explicit demolition of conservative power structures, and people have. You are free to argue for Communist revolution if you like. During the riots, people argued that rioting was a good thing and that burning police stations was awesome. I'm religious; someone elsewhere in this week's thread has argued that religion should be considered a mental illness. He's allowed to do that.

I have consumed memes about bad things happening to Blues in politically-charged incidents, and experienced positive qualia.

That's because you are not thinking about them as people at that point but faceless statistics, I would wager. If you sub in some Blue person that you actually know and care about, a friend, relative, an in law. Do you still feel the same way? I heavily suspect from what I know of you, that you would not.

Being happy something bad happened to a faceless member of the outgroup is as easy as it is meaningless. The question is do you hate the individual Blues that you know just because they are Blues?

Because that is what would be required for the breakdown of society in the way you talk about. Not that you are vaguely happy some random pink haired trans activist is hit by a truck with a MAGA bumper sticker while they tried to block the road, or that your Blue equivalent is vaguely happy some redneck in a cowboy hat gets beaten with a chair by a black paddleboat crew. That is entirely normal! We like it when bad things happen to the faceless other side, because they are wrong and bad, otherwise they would be on our side. That is an entirely normal human feeling. Our societies have had to deal with that since we started living together in groups bigger than 5.

But if it was your Blue brother in law, who you talk sports with at family weddings and who treats your sister well, who was hit by the truck, are you still happy? If so, then yes you are probably over the edge in partisan hate (in my opinion). But from how you write, I don't think that applies to you, and from my interactions with both Blue and Red Americans (given I am not American but live here), I don't think that is true of the vast, vast majority of them either.

I live in a Red town, but I work in the city in academia. When I have a bbq and my worlds collide, people are perfectly ok with each other. The local hardware store employee does not end up in a death match with the university HR rep. They eat hot dogs together while complaining about how people who prefer ketchup to mustard are evil (real example!).

In my direct experience most Americans do NOT hate each other across the blue/red divide. Because they barely know each other and true hate requires knowledge. They may dislike the opposing tribe, but that is not the same thing, and confusing the two is a mistake.

That's because you are not thinking about them as people at that point but faceless statistics, I would wager.

That or as an Emmanuel Goldstein, if they're particularly odious. Think people's attitude toward Shkreli a few years back.

Do you still feel the same way? I heavily suspect from what I know of you, that you would not.

Of course not. But kind feelings fostered by intimate familiarity are no protection at all against the strong arm of the government, or of the mob.

On the contrary, kind feelings however they are fostered are a strong protection. Not necessarily at the individual level of course.

One of the reasons the IRA was forced to cone to the table was that their own people had begun to support them less due to a couple of bombing campaigns that killed children and OAPs. These victims were still of the outgroup, but their was outrage even with Catholic communities. How people felt about the victims killed in their name was crucial in the ceasefire.

Before that the British dialed back on internment and brutal tactics to suppress Catholics after British citizens condemned things like Bloody Sunday and several shootings where teenagers ended up dead. The government responds to public pressure.

In the US, it was seeing black people brutalized by the police and having dogs set on them while peacefully marching that triggered enough support, that finally tried to remove layers of legal discrimination.

Seeing your opponents as people, as lives lost and ruined is a key factor in keeping, and returning to peace, and even when those differences have been built on hundreds of years of hatred and violence, it can still be done. We can still see dead Protestants or dead Catholics as abhorrent even after all of that.

Red's and Blue's are no different in my experience. Most Americans whatever their affiliations do not want to see their opponents murdered. Your levels of division are increasing, but you're not even at the levels the US was in the 60's and 70's let alone where Northern Ireland was in the 60's and 70's. Tensions wax and wane over time. Your fatalism is I believe misplaced.

Back home we would say that everything is bigger in America. I recently attended a wedding in Texas, and the saying that everything in Texas is bigger, apparently makes Texas, the America of America. But the people I met in rural Texas were not particularly different than the people I meet in Pennsylvania (though the church was huge as was the liquor store!) A union of a Philly city boy and a Texas rural girl, and the union of their families. Even North to South, rural to urban, the divisions in America at the personal level, simply do not look that great especially compared to history.

And it is, make no mistake at the personal level that will drive or heal the divisions you do have. Mobs and governments can be dumb and violent and can do terrible things, no doubt. But if the next day the public looks at bodies on the street and is repulsed, then there is a cap. Even at the height of the BLM riots, very few people actually died compared to the numbers involved (though there were some). Even in mobs and with mobs facing armed police, largely widespread death was not the result. Even for those who believed an election was stolen, and were there when the decision was being made ended up with very little death and destruction. Everything may be bigger in America, except when it comes to mob and government violence it appears.

I am not American, but I think you will get through this as your great nation has got through so many other (in my view) worse positions.

Yes it is all about decorum, that is in fact my point. I have seen many people criticize conservatives, but none that I have seen have done so with decorum youve shown-- the finality of the tone and extreme positions advocated for, (at least originally) without explicit argument, while at the same time telegraphing your intent to defect from your enemies...

You say this could be tolerated from the left, but I really don't believe it. I would welcome some examples from you if you think otherwise.

Yes it is all about decorum, that is in fact my point. I have seen many people criticize conservatives, but none that I have seen have done so with decorum youve shown-- the finality of the tone and extreme positions advocated for, (at least originally) without explicit argument, while at the same time telegraphing your intent to defect from your enemies...

Well, I've kind of been doing this for a while.

No one wants this to happen! They want the conversations to keep going! They get angry at people for not being charitable enough, and demand more effort. They get angry at people for growing more certain, less open. But what else is evidence for, if not to lead to conclusions? What is the point of conversation, if not to move from less knowledge to more knowledge? Why ask questions if you don't want answers?

Have you read Scott's Conflict vs Mistake theory, or Sort by Controversial? I see in another comment that you've read Conservatives as moral mutants, but have you read Zunger's Tolerance is not a moral precept.

In Conflict vs Mistake, Scott lays out two basic ways that people can frame disagreement, either as a mistake to be corrected so cooperation can be restored, or as a conflict where cooperation is impossible. The thing to note from that one is that from a materialist, rationalist perspective, the two are asymmetric; if one side thinks it's a conflict, and you can't convince them they're wrong, you are in a conflict whether you think they're making a mistake or not.

Conservatives as Moral Mutants might require some background to appreciate the full effect; the author is (or was at the time of writing, I haven't followed their writing in years) an eminently reasonable, charitable, thoughtful person. The takeaway is that values, at the end of the day, are by definition the only things that matter to any of us, and not all values are compatible.

Tolerance Is Not a Moral Precept addresses the question of what we do when we are confronted by incompatible values. He points out that tolerance has never been more than a least-worst alternative to what we all want, which is for things to be Right. We accept that we can't have things perfectly right because we can't all agree on what "Right" is, so we tolerate some deviation to keep the peace. But deviation that can be suppressed without compromising the peace always has been and always will be suppressed. If it can't be suppressed, the alternatives are separation or war. In my opinion, it's one of the best essays I've ever read.

Sort By Controversial is the chaser, compressing into a short-story something of the actual feeling of long-term exposure to the culture war.

If you've read them, I'd be interested to know what you think of them.

I gotta agree here @FCfromSSC I like your style and think you're a good writer. You've actually helped convince me to flip more conservative myself since I've been reading the site.

That being said, even I get pretty turned off by your no-holds-barred never changing your mind position. You can believe that sort of thing, but at least keep the fig leaf that you're not actively waging the culture war. If only to slow the descent of this site into a right-wing echo chamber.

That being said, even I get pretty turned off by your no-holds-barred never changing your mind position.

The term you're looking for is fatalism.

I am inclined to argue, but there's little point and it's a fair cop.

[EDIT] - It's tough, you know?

Speak plainly, and it's waging the culture war.

Speak obliquely, and it's darkly hinting.

Don't speak at all, and endure the misery of people asking questions with obvious answers.

Probably I should just make more spaceships.

It would be nice if you guys who believe so strongly in common values and the strength of institutions would actually bring some evidence at some point, though.

Probably I should just make more spaceships.

So you are trolling on the Motte when you could be making spaceships...

You are Elon Musk and I claim my 3 months' free Twitter Blue subscription.

Also get off social media and go back to making spaceships, for all of our sakes.

Probably I should just make more spaceships.

So you are trolling on the Motte when you could be making spaceships...

You are Elon Musk and I claim my 3 months' free

Sadly, no... just an guy who likes making spaceships...

common values and the strength of institutions

Eh honestly I don't know if it's an instrumental reason I can clearly articulate. I certainly don't have strong faith in our institutions. More that I just feel it's wrong to call for violence and to not see the potential for good in humanity.

Honestly I prefer your darkly hinting, I think you're quite good at it. I can sympathize with you though, it is difficult to figure out where to draw the line.

More that I just feel it's wrong to call for violence and to not see the potential for good in humanity.

Hold on... where was he calling for violence? And for that matter, where is he not seeing the potential good in humanity?

More comments

Probably I should just make more spaceships.

Take the spaceship pill and make me happy.

Is he actually exhibiting a "no-holds-barred never changing your mind position"? My impression is that what you, and others, are taking an issue with is the "some institutions are hostile, and need to be treated as such" position. That he's supposed to act like these institutions don't have the explicit goal of spreading values hostile to his, even when he can give a direct link to them saying this is what they are doing. While I can understand someone disagreeing with his views on these institutions (and debate on their nature would be very interesting to see), I don't see why the expression of these views should be beyond the pale.

Here's one that happened relatively recently. Back on reddit we discussed this essay, and not only was it not banned to argue in favor of it, a person that jokingly said "Quick, get her kids before she gets yours!" was moderated. Otherwise he brought up a few specific examples like BLM riots being defended. If it's links you want, that demand is unfair given that reddit search sites have been crippled, and you don't feel obligated to provide any to make your point.

the finality of the tone and extreme positions advocated for, (at least originally) without explicit argument, while at the same time telegraphing your intent to defect from your enemies...

I disagree about the "without explicit argument", his post is the explicit argument in the context of the conversation. Otherwise, none of that is against the rules as far as I can tell.

Yes that heavily downvoted post... great example! The community obviously thought it was below some standard on some level, and I would tend to agree. We will see where FC's post will stand in 24 hours.

Given how conservatives still seethe about the moral mutant post, it seems to me an obvious net negative in its impact on the discourse. In fact, I think I recall FC, or some other, citing that post as a justification for their tone. Well obviously defection begets defection. I think the ideas in that essay could have been presented another way, and should have, but the OP chose the way of brash, arrogant condescension. And we see the fallout from that.

Yes that heavily downvoted post... great example!

I'm sorry, what definition of "tolerate" are you using?

The community obviously thought it was below some standard on some level

No. They disagreed, and clicked the "I disagree" button.

Given how conservatives still seethe about the moral mutant post

Now this would be a violation of this community's decorum.

I think the ideas in that essay could have been presented another way, and should have

This is weird. If you think the substance of the post is fine, it's just the way it's presented that has issues, I have no idea what is the issue with FC's comment. He was nowhere near as condescending as Ozy, and the substance is pretty much the same, the big exception being that FC does not want to indoctrinate blue tribe kids, just shield the red ones from blue indoctrination.

On reddit, the mantra was that the downvote was not an "I disagree" button. If that's not the case at the motte I sure would like to know that.

Now this would be a violation of this community's decorum.

How so? To seethe means to get angry or become highly agitated. It seems to me factual that many conservatives did angry over the post. And I don't blame them really. It is no less factual or inflammatory than FCs follow up claim that 70% of blue tribers hate his kind and vice versa.

I am baffled by what you consider acceptable decorum. Do you believe Ozys essay meets the decorum standards of this community? Yet my use of seethe does not.

Full disclosure, I think both the substance and the tone in Ozys essay are both quite bad. If there is any kernel or value to be had in discussing it, then the discussion should proceed in a tone that inversely proportional to how inflammatory the subject is. This is a basic principle I think that allows highly charged topics to be discussed productively. I don't think Ozys or FC's posts meet that standard.

More comments

I cannot fathom why the community tolerates this kind of thing; certainly it would never tolerate any naked calls for the explicit demolition of conservative power structures from anyone left of center

It tolerates it because it's entire point is to tolerate civilly expressed views, and his counts as such. Counter to your claim, it did tolerate naked calls to demolish conservative power structures from people left of center, and punished anyone who refused to engage charitably.

A shared set of rules has, unfortunately, never implied a shared set of principles.

I think @FCfromSSC is being obtuse, and that accelerationism is one of the least useful philosophies known to man. Choosing defection over cooperation is the strategic equivalent of a public suicide. I concur with you that what he claims to want would result in the end of places like this.

But.

It remains within his rights to advocate for such, because the rules are not the principles. So long as he maintains the written and unwritten decorum, he could advocate for the worst and most debased philosophies, and you or I could step in to argue that he's wrong.

Do you think this is just a fine example of the kind of decorum that's acceptable here? If these kinds of posts were 100x more frequent, at the same level of decorum, would that make the motte a better or worse place? Personally I think the motte would quickly become unusable.

If these kinds of posts were 100x more frequent, at the same level of decorum, would that make the motte a better or worse place? Personally I think the motte would quickly become unusable.

This is a standard which would be failed by pretty much every post here, including the Actually A Quality Contribution posts. A 100-fold increase in frequency of any one particular type of post, no matter how good that type is, is such a drastic change that it's likely to throw the social dynamics off balance in a way that is hard to predict and thus make the forum harder to use for the people who are already accustomed to the preexisting ones.

For instance, your posts here complaining about someone else's level of decorum; if people posted these types of posts 100x as often (presuming the posts were approved), then the Motte would quickly become unusable. That's not to say that you should stop posting these; just like other people shouldn't stop posting comments that would, if scaled up 100-fold, make the Motte unusable, because that's a ridiculously high standard.

And I'll say that the post in question isn't exactly the flagship example of the kind of decorum that's acceptable here, but it's definitely well within the bounds of the kind of decorum that's acceptable here. And furthermore, personally, it's the kind of decorum that I enjoy seeing here and wouldn't mind seeing more of, though a 100-fold - or even 5-fold, TBH - increase in its frequency would definitely render the Motte unusable for my uses.

I think, if that is how people are thinking and feeling they should be able to talk about it here. I think my almost namesake is wrong on a lot of things. But I think he truthfully believes what he says, and as such it is pretty important to know that. Particularly if there are other people who feel the same way (and there are I believe). Now of course if everyone said the same thing this place would be the worse for it, because it would be more boring and echo-chambery.

Generally I think he is civil to people here and I have no problem with him saying what he says, even if I disagree with him, and think he is way too pessimistic and thus can only see (what I would perceive) as negative ways out.

Choosing defection over cooperation is the strategic equivalent of a public suicide.

Randomly scraped from the hopper:

Minnesota’s new K-12 social studies standards — now in the final stages of rulemaking approval — exemplify this ideology. The standards add ethnic studies to the core social studies disciplines of history, civics, economics, and geography, and incorporate its concepts throughout. One ethnic studies “anchor standard,” titled “Resistance,” is typical. It requires students to “organize with others to resist systemic and coordinated exercises of power” against “marginalized,” oppressed groups.

Obviously, I agree that k-12 education should emphasize the necessity of resistance to oppression. I merely insist that the correct definition of oppression be the one taught; that is to say, mine. Currently that's not the case, and I think that should change. Why would that be an invalid preference?

Kindergartners, for example, must “retell a story about an unfair experience that conveys a power imbalance.” First-graders must “identify examples of ethnicity, equality, liberation and systems of power and use those examples to construct meanings for those terms.”

High school students will be required to “analyze how caste systems based upon race, social class, and religion have been used to justify imperialism, colonization, warfare, and chattel slavery” and to “examine the construction of racialized hierarchies based on colorism and dominant European beauty standards and values.”

...The ethnic studies-driven campaign to discredit American institutions as illegitimate is most clearly evident in the standards that focus on criminal justice. Students will study our police departments and justice system in connection with an ethnic studies standard that requires them to “understand the roots of contemporary systems of oppression” and “eliminate” “injustices.”

...Fifth graders, for example, will “examine contemporary policing” and its alleged “historical roots in early America.” (The claim is that our police departments sprang directly from slave patrols of the Old South.) Sixth-graders will study the “impact” of “Minnesota’s juvenile justice system” on youth “from historically disenfranchised groups.” High school standards suggest the notion of criminality itself is racist: “Explore how criminality is constructed and what makes a person a criminal.”

...And you and I, I think, share common knowledge that the "understanding" they're inculcating of the "roots of contemporary systems of oppression" has little to no basis in fact. That is to say, they cannot actually point to discrete mechanisms by which these "systems of oppression" operate, and they cannot successfully intervene to make those "systems of oppression" stop oppressing. It's a name, not an explanation. Meanwhile, the 30% increase in the murder rate post-BLM-riots has sustained itself, it's mostly black people getting killed, and it is definately not the result of police hunting black people for sport. The people who wrote this curriculum do not actually have a way to "eliminate" "injustices", only ways to give themselves more power, and they are successfully doing it with taxpayer money.

I don't think you approve of this, but I don't think you have any real solution to it either. I think describing the strategy that produces that material is fairly described as "reject and subvert systems that work against our interests. Deny their power, hamper their operations, refuse their legitimacy, appropriate or destroy their resources". I think if you were unfortunate enough to be forced to live under a total victory by my side, you'd still be happier than under total victory by the woke. I think the overwhelming majority of the woke would be better off, though I would greatly prefer they live somewhere else. What makes you so invested in a detente that arguably never existed and certainly is no longer sustainable?

I concur with you that what he claims to want would result in the end of places like this.

I'm not seeing it. This place is very deliberately trying not to be a power center, so there's no reason to attack it. Also, while FC might not have spelled it out, the point isn't to destroy blue institutions across the world, wherever they might hiding, but to shorten their reach so they can't exercise their power over reds. Blue institutions ruling over blues is completely fine and proper. Neutral grounds like this site also have their place.

no mainstream conservative figure like a Ben Shapiro or a Steven Crowder has reviewed it or interviewed him.

I was randomly looking up Adam Carolla's podcast yesterday and watched a recent episode, which happened to feature Hanania and his book, so I just assumed he's been making the rounds. He was good and fit in fine as a guest with only a little bit of airtime, although it looks like the youtube views at least are only around 20k per episode (probably better numbers for other audio-only spots).

Holy moly! That's the guy who voiced Spanky in Drawn Together! Nevermind, I guess he IS doing mainstream appearances. Thank you!

What a weird take. That would be like "oh the joe rogan podcast, what a BIG deal, that's the guy from Zookeeper!" Carolla had one of the most popular podcasts in the world for like a decade and it still seems to be doing numbers in the last 5 years (though I already mentioned it may be dwindling). Looking at it, just within the prior 3 weeks before Hanania, they had Candace Owens, Tucker, and Vivek as guests, each pushing one thing or another, and getting more views to the extent that they're a draw.

I'm even subscribed to Hanania's channel, yet the only reason I knew he had a book out was due to stumbling across this particular mainstream appearance (hence my assumption that he had been doing normal rounds like this, and thus my surprise to learn that it's not the case - taking your word for it, I haven't been searching for him).

That's literally what I know him from. It's relatively obscure, but significant to me. I believe you when you say his podcast was hugely successful. I just didn't know about it.

This is the first time I've heard of it and I hang out in rat spaces like theMotte, which are the only places ive ever ever ever heard anything about Hananai. My theory is as simple as this, I think your information bubble has led you to vastly over-estimate Hananai name recognition / brand awareness especially among the age demographics likely to buy books.

I think you're searching too hard for a reason, when your null hypothesis should be that he doesn't make the list and try to test the theory of why he would

You make a good point. I figured he would because so many less important conservative books sell well. But I suppose importance has nothing to do with success.

Disclaimer, I haven't read Origins of Woke yet, partially because my understanding was that Hanania's solution boiled down to trying to bring white people into the fold of Civil Rights as you described. But one thing I don't get is why Hanania's argument is different from the Ben Shapiro, conservative "let's just change people's minds with arguments." Who exactly is going to buy an Originalist argument for including white people under the umbrella of Civil Rights protection? Almost nobody.

Originalist arguments have some power, the Federalist Society has its influence and many in its sphere are undoubtedly motivated by a commitment to Constitutional Originalism. But that certainly hasn't stopped Wokeness. I find it completely impossible that a so-called originalist interpretation of Civil Rights which calls to provide legal protections for White people, an interpretation which was absolutely not shared by those most influential in its creation, to be convincing to anybody except White Nationalists.

It manages to be not radical enough and too radical at the same time, which is not a compliment. I agree that the Civil Rights Act is "as much a part of our national identity at this point as the Constitution", and let's just say our Constitutional Originalist Libertarian friends have nothing to contribute to dismantling Wokeness, so a fake "Civil Rights Originalist" libertarian sounds even worse.

Trying to make laws that are based on motte and bailey between pretensions of equality but actually it is about screwing white people or men, or whatever non progressive group is an obvious way forward.

The only way it might not work is because some of the politicians calling themselves conservatives in addition to the leftists are unwilling to do this whatsoever. In that case, nothing that can work, will work. Pressure can still get more of them, but the right has a gatekeeping problem and infilitration by the left.

Hanania take that wokeness comes in part due to the law and what politicians voted for and enforced is true. Fundamentally what happened is that leftists voted for laws that preffered left wing groups and screwed the right, and supposed right wingers failed to oppose this or even joined with it.

More attention paid on this phenomenon is good, but we really need to promote much greater gatekeeping. The final evolution ought to be to be intolerant of leftists too who are too far to the left and are progressive supremacists. All this is possible, it just requires elite will to do so. And it might require some other meassures to the extend the NGO complex which was itself created and didn't exist overnight, favors one of the two outcomes. Corporate America for example acording to Bloomberg hired over 90% nonwhites. The same corporate america which sided with BLM which actually lead to a rise in murders in black community.

If the same applied against non whites, the leftists here would be advocating for the goverment to regulate and punish the people running corporations. Fundamentally right wingers need to be more aggressive and more willing to enforce justice while not buying the gaslighting of leftists who defect but want the right to be pushovers so they win. The left also should be more just and not be of te form the left is today. We need to gatekeep against that as well, rather than respecting progressive supremacist as an acceptable opinion. It's not. We can have pluralistic debate within a more limited overton window that includes valuable views and excludes the progressive supremacists.

Since you mentioned white nationalism, my take as someone who isn't a white American (I am not American and don't want to give at this point too many details about where I am from) is that some level of tribalism for white Americans being allowed is what you have if you don't have a racist antiwhite society. Unlimited white identity politics can become racist for the same reason the unlimited identity politics for Jews, blacks, women, trans, etc while no identity politics allowed for white americans, men, etc, leads to obvious prejudiced paths. So, even if someone supports multiculturalism white identity politics are a part of that, and it is insane racist bs to want zero white identity politics, when other groups, including broader categorizations with racial elements like Hispanic, Blacks, Asians, etc have theirs. Limiting the tribalism for progressive groups is the big thing if you want to make American society less racist.

I really can't take seriously at all someone who thinks zero white tribalism while allowing quite more tribalism for other groups is the solution to racism. Rather this is the kind of racist concern troll who should be gatekept. Both in a nation state and in a multicultural society, there ought to be tribalism for the majority group but with limits. Even in a nation state too much arrogance can lead to trying to take land from neighbors, etc. lack of tribalism leads to letting others take over, mass migrate, discriminate against you, and the vacuum is filled by the people who supposedly don't have tribalism adopt the tribalism of other groups, anyhow. There is a sweet spot.

So presenting things and pressuring in a direction that rejects the false dichotomy between far left extremism (that pretends of being moderation) and super far right boogieman, is important as to allow people to choose the superior moderate path of justice.

Trying to get the right in this direction is going to be more successful than trying to have a right that purity spirals and accepts the exact way of thinking of the more edgy, hardcore rightist types.

Trying to get the right in this direction is going to be more successful than trying to have a right that purity spirals and accepts the exact way of thinking of the more edgy, hardcore rightist types.

Yeah, unfortunately many commenters here seem to think that there is no hope for the modern right to ever gain ground back without going full defection, all out aggression against progressivism. Salting the earth and all that. While I do understand the impulse given that progressives have been playing that game for a while, I think it makes the already incoherent right-wing position even worse.

If the standard conservative position in the U.S. is to promote Christian ideology with the core virtues of hope, faith, and love, how can this naked war-mongering really fit into it? White identitarianism? Come on. The religion that many right-wingers profess to be defending is the origin point of the progressive ideology in the first place. I'd like to see the right promote more intellectualism within right wing spaces, the failure to do which I think has lead to many of the defeats today. Instead many just want to double down on populist aggression tactics.

No, you misunderstand me. Being contemptuous of the current form of progressivism is precisely what a virtuous right ought to do. It is defecting to various principles to not do that and conform with a destructive agenda.

But there is a sweet spot between treating the current form of progressivism with contempt and trying to be as edgy as possible. The right today has the other problem, not of edgyness but of playing a role in promoting progressive extremist policies, including of discriminatory nature.

Some of the edgy voices on the right might go too far sometimes. Moreover, progressive extremism is based on promoting a false dichotomy and the threat of far right extremism. So in addition to an ethical benefit, there is a tactical benefit too to behaving in line with the sweet spot. Most rightists in this forum are actually too much compromising with far leftist extremists and the tribal identitarianism. We should see progressive movement in power today as one that defects and both promotes hatred and abuse of the right outgroup, and discriminates and even persecutes it at every turn using rhetorical dirty tricks while doing so.

I don't think there is a positive value in conforming to the framing or the value system of the left. But while the constrains of leftists and many liberals should not bide the right, I do think it should still be constrained by principles. Someone needs to stand up for what is just. Indeed said principles not only necessitating not going too far in certain issues, but also to go far enough and act decisively enough.

White identitarianism? Come on. The religion that many right-wingers profess to be defending is the origin point of the progressive ideology in the first place. I'd like to see the right promote more intellectualism within right wing spaces, the failure to do which I think has lead to many of the defeats today. Instead many just want to double down on populist aggression tactics.

Some level of White American identitarianism should be respected by everyone, including non Americans. I consider white Americans foreigners so I mean it. Its part of international justice and it is lacking in intellectualism to throw that to the side over antiwhite racism. White Americans have rights too. The opposite is unjust and racist. I have strong centrist influences in my way of thinking so it isn't just about the right.

In all honesty, the left should compromise with some level of white identity politics if it wants to stand with intellectually honest virtues and principles. The only version of International Justice that has ever worked well is the one that is about different ethnic groups having rights and respecting each others national self determination, national sovereignity, etc, etc. A situation where some ethnic groups have their history vilified and claimed not to belong to them while other ethnic groups are promoted at every turn fits into the very classic racist supremacy paradigm which is what the modern mainstream left agenda fits into.

In a multiethnic country like USA, not respecting that white American ethnic group has rights as a group is the position of racist extremists who try to push their agenda while concern trolling about just being against identity politics in bad faith. We all know that tribalism for ethnic groups (and yes racial groups are ethnic groups if they are treated as an ethnic group so Asians, Blacks qualify as ethnic groups in USA too) is quite acceptable in the USA and in general.

I don't think everyone eliminating identity politics is a good choice anyhow, since it doesn't work, and the people who mostly focus on promotintg this are concern trolls who want to eliminate the tribalism of their right wing outgroup ethnicities but don't exert anywhere near that effort for ethnic groups associated with the left, including racial ones like Blacks. In fact we see the opposite.

But we can to some extend get different tribes to respect each others rights to a greater or less degree. This in fact does conflict with a vision of white nationalism which is about whites having all the rights and other groups having none.

What I promote is intolerance towards the immoral and incorrect viewpoint that it is universalism to disallow tribalism and rights for right wing outgroup. It isn't universalism, it isn't based on any intellectual valid principle either but it is based on partisan rhetoric against the outgroup. It is war by deception.

Personally, I don't see my ethnic group as a race, although it isn't totally irrelevant aspect, it is just the ethnicity is a more exclusive category, and there is a broader category that might be related to it that I fit to. But it is just special pleading by racists to disallow white American ethnic groups any rights. Plus, when talking about whites it includes various european ethnic groups as well which also have rights that ought to be respected.

So yeah, I am not a fan of a vision of the world where white ethnic groups are only ones with rights and we shit on the rest, or the opposite. Not only the left, but the right will become less racist if it compromises with respecting the rights of european ethnic groups. And what I say about edginess is about avoiding making it the thing to be predatory towards other ethnic groups. Both because being in the sweet spot is a good goal in itself but also because it doesn't help the goal of defeating the primary racism of today which is leftist one and yes does have an antiwhite hue. Because as I said, one of the way that progressive racists promote their agenda is to falsely paint themselves as moderate and to paint the alternative as extreme. When they are on one side of the extreme and there is in fact an ethically superior moderate alternative.

Indeed, if one focuses in taking polls and seeing the way people in Europe think including some western countries like France, and more western countries a couple decades ago, this way of thinking was dominant. It is just that a minority of elites pushed through their more extreme agenda by not respecting the wishes of the people. If one focuses on polls outside of europe, one again finds little of the "eliminate all tribes" ideology. And if one focuses on liberals and leftists in western countries, one again finds very very few who push this consistently for all tribes and ethnic groups. Maybe in the past where marxists were more separate faction than the rest of the left, there might been some of them who were more sincere, but even actual marxists were promoter of cultural marxism, with third world nationalism.

*** What I say about the left and liberalism apply to an extend to past liberals. In 20th century there have been plenty of far leftist liberals and cultural marxists who supported nationalism for left wing tribes and were racist on ethnic europeans. But being fair, moderate nationalism as part of international justice has been an agenda that some leftists and quite more people aligned with, including liberals. The more far left faction and ethnic lobbies like ADL didn't really win an intellectual agenda, just pushed their view through with force and by marching in institutions.And this has not been a march towards progress but a degeneration towards injustice and into more racism, more bigotry, greater double standards, more hatred.

When it comes to the more moderate nationalism as part of international justice way of thinking, of course when it comes to centrists and rightists, it was quite the dominant strain, and remains so in many eastern european countries.

Ironically leftist intersectionality has elements of this within the progressive stack favored groups that there must be some compromise between the tribalism of the related ethnic groups and other identity groups. However, the white group that you argue against identity politics, are those which are not respected and no compromise is made for it.

Also, even American conservatives like Tucker Carlson also do this with groups like blacks. They don't say to blacks or other groups you must have no tribal identity. They find blacks who have a conception of themselves as a group, care about the well being of their group but they like white people to an extend, and they promote them. Indeed they themselves respect said blacks like Kanye West seeing their ethnic group as a valid group to identify with.

The way American conservatives like Carlson want American blacks to behave, I don't see why someone who isn't an antiwhite racist would reject for white Americans. Frankly, any notion of American multiculturalism makes zero sense without some level of white tribalism and white identity politics.

So to summarize your point, you think that the right wing should be more intolerant of Progressive virtues. I agree. But could you highlight what that looks like exactly?

The problem is it feels like conservatives are stuck between a rock and a hard place in some ways. How does the right fight against the left without escalating? I agree that breaking political norms and pushing populist extremism and violence is a terrible idea.

So does the right start cancelling people? Trying to capture institutions the way the left has been doing for decades?

What I call to be intolerant of is not really a case of virtue. Lets call it an ideology, if we want to be neutral.

There are elements of liberalism of the more classical variety that as is apparent I do think are valuable.

I agree that breaking political norms and pushing populist extremism and violence is a terrible idea.

No, we don't agree. You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth in a way that helps you political side. I say the right shouldn't promote a predatory philosophy. Breaking political norms is the only sane idea since progressive extremists promote as political norm for them to win and an abuse of norm for any non progressive extremist to do anything. The "moderate" right (actually extremists) have been promoting hate speech laws, discriminatory policies, mass migration, and even in Britain have even aligned with zero carbon emission agendas.

So obviously a principled manner to behave should abhor the radicalization to far left and other agendas we have seen over the latest period of time.

I also never used the word populist in a negative sense, although my views are not wholly positive about populism.

The reality is woke extremists use the term populist as a pejorative and in doing so they oppose actual sane things they associate with populism.

The violent fantasy shouldn't be the way to work through, but hard work in promoting your ideals and trying to capture institutions. But I didn't say anywhere that violence is a terrible idea, nor a good idea so you are bringing a new element. It should not be the focus. Action is necessary and that action is not going to be of the form of physical violence, but arresting criminals for example can involve violence and when being physically attacked, physically defending yourself is violence. But sure, physical violence is not the goal here, but a moral order should be the goal. A just society with enforceable rules might have coercion in it but typically ends up with much less physical violence over an alternative more chaotic unjust society.

So does the right start cancelling people? Trying to capture institutions the way the left has been doing for decades?

Of course. Immoral not to do so and only moral to do so. Now, I would oppose purity spiraling and cancelling moderates in the way I define it. Which means evenhanded people. Note, you are not an evenhanded individual. But trying to put people in positions of power who don't abuse it and removing those who do abuse it, and gatekeeping so the later don't reach those positions is a necessity. It is also how you get a more free society to remove the political comisars who impose struggle sessions on anyone not with their extreme ideology.

But there are other considerations at play here as well like promoting truth, or that people do have a right to a community, including an ethnic community, and not to be constantly shut upon. The extreme racism promoted by progressive supremacists and the constant propaganda of that nature is it self a massive problem. Not to add consequences of rise of crime due to BLM, or other agendas.

You could say, I align with promoting the agenda of a late 20th century patriotic normie who wants the good of his people without trying to be predatory on others.

The song and dance where far leftist extremists define themselves as moderate and call others to let them win or they are extremists and then use authoritarian means to censor, ban them, etc is rather tiresome.

My view on the right is that there is much less extremism and more a case of rightists being less absolute morons being taken advantage of by bad faith actors.

The problem is it feels like conservatives are stuck between a rock and a hard place in some ways. How does the right fight against the left without escalating?

To be honest, when I complain about extremists it is people who offer this kind of extremist special pleading I am talking about. Far left extremism has been such a dominant force because we have to deal with people who after revealing they are progressives then change their attitute into the friendly advisor who must ask if conservatives have a right to exist and fight for its perspective from a weaker position. Then they pick as good alternative the leftists in conservative clothing.

Trying to win the culture war by pulling dirty tricks. Yes, it is hard for you for conservatives to fight back because you want them to lose. Even at this point when you would expect the fear of left wing extremism and further to be more motivating to a reasonable person than conservatives fighting back. The kind of policies being implemented should make you more afraid of conservatives not fighting back.

Let me offer an example. You got a choice to pick between a far left extremist who is against the right wing existing and a moderate who thinks accurately that far left extremists have went too far and want to push things in a more right wing direction to a point. You pick the later and exclude the first, benefiting your society in the process by promoting a person who is more truthful, less authoritarian and out to enforce things in line with the spirit and rule of the law. Especially before it was subverted. Much better than the far left extremist who hides his power level. Conservatives fighting back and getting institutions to stop screwing over right wing outgroups and the native people of western societies and more is actually a good thing.

The danger of escalation is an overblown issue much overwhelmed by the danger of conservatives who aren't even moderate but aligning with far to the left agendas. So, the way to do this is to focus on reality and the real problems, while not forgeting valid principles and the valid way to behave, which actually does change to an extend based on situation. Proportionality is still a thing though, but you operate differently in a political environment X where say the left is of a more extreme, intolerant variety, and different in an environment Z, where they are more moderate and tolerant.

So there is a room for compromise but only with people who are already of a more moderate disposition which makes it less of a compromise. But the secret of power is that any victorious faction does forge its victory not only through exclusion but also through flipping people from a position of strength, by promoting its own perspective as valid and being just as willing to offer the carrot as the stick. So my other alternative to add is that the right should do more patronage of culture.

Like the activists who have seized important positions in the goverment, we can get people to support what I advocate by giving writers, artists, even academics studying actual valid fields. So abandoning the libertarian albatross will help gain some elites along. Rewarding friends and punishing enemies its power 101.

But there is a difference with the left since too much parasitism is a bad thing. Things we have now with the activist complex can not be tolerated to exist even in rightist form because it is an immoral waste. So cancelling the diversity propaganda jobs will weaken the powercenter, and banning organizations like hope not hate, ADL, SPLC, etc. The authoritarian progressive supremacist and extorting grifter donation seeking activists that have succeeded in corrupting the goverment and powerful private institutions should ideally be made illegal outright and I rather we don't create a right wing analogue since such organizations are rather extreme, and are parasitical besides siphoning wealth and influence that is better reserved for elsewhere. If we have a right wing ADL dominating society in the same way ADL does now, we would have an example of a purity spiral in the rightist direction.

But we can have weaker, more moderate organizations, which means promoting public morality of course. And the world I envision there is pluralism and debate, but there is an overton window that is to the right of now's but still has limits to both right and left, but is much more limiting of far leftism than what we have now.

There is a reason why I use the term moderate because it isn't really just about the right but also about actual genuine moderates, since the current situation is intolerable to anyone who favors a moderate end. So yeah, this is an exploration of how it would look like for the right and others pushing in this direction I advocate. If you want every single detail I can't give it to you, partly because it is part of my personal philosophy to believe there are gray areas that are up to debate and black and white areas that we need to be more adamant on. So I don't actually have a vision of the world where there is an answer to every question, or I believe someone ought to have the answer to every question.

Things moving less to the left and more rightist direction to a point is one of the black and white things. Dosage makes the poison so constantly doubling down towards any direction is death, is another black and white thing. But there is a range of different dosages which might work. Yours is not one of them.

White identitarianism? Come on. The religion that many right-wingers profess to be defending is the origin point of the progressive ideology in the first place.

My impression is that white identitarianism is most commonly advanced by atheists, so I think this one is a miss.

I'd like to see the right promote more intellectualism within right wing spaces, the failure to do which I think has lead to many of the defeats today

I think there's plenty of intellectualism in right wing spaces, and claiming otherwise is one of the progressive aggression tactics.

I mean this unironically - can you please link a right wing space that has intellectual discourse? This is the first and only place online I've found.

EDIT: also with regards to white identitarianism, fair point. I suppose I should say that I think white identitarianism is foolish because without Christians the right has practically no real cultural or political power. Not to mention consistency.

Their podcast circuit is pretty good, some of the ones I check out:

If you're looking for a community where you could debate, that might be harder because I'm not really sure where they gather online, but maybe you can try basket weaving.

Agh, yeah maybe that's my issue. High quality right wing content is almost always suggested in video or podcast form and I just... don't enjoy those mediums. I bet there's a reason why the right has such a strong disdain for the written word, at least in a more intellectual sense.

I try not to judge but I genuinely do think that podcasts and videos tend to pander far more to the lowest common denominator, and select for poorly thought out on-the-fly arguments.

why the right has such a strong disdain for the written word

That's not true either. A lot of the same people have substacks too:

There's a bunch of magazines and think tanks that I ran into over the years that also seemed ok, but I'd need to search for them.

I try not to judge but I genuinely do think that podcasts and videos tend to pander far more to the lowest common denominator, and select for poorly thought out on-the-fly arguments.

I think you're being silly. If you wanted text only you should have said so from the start.

More comments

I mean this unironically - can you please link a right wing space that has intellectual discourse?

4chan.org

That said I don't think this is really the kind of answer you're looking for, because there's a lot of non-intellectual discourse on there as well. But without qualifications, it does indeed qualify as a right wing space with intellectual discourse on it.

Ahh, yeah I can't be bothered to wade through that sort of dross. It destroys the human spirit.

The difference is that Hanania argues that woke institutions, including corporations, are required to be woke by law, and he points out the specific laws and Supreme Court decisions (which are essentially laws) that need to be attacked. He wants to remove the disparate impact doctrine, for example.

I think even granting that argument, I don't see how advocating for "Civil Rights Originalism" is going to be more impactful than Constitutional Originalism. Constitutional Originalists correctly point out the ever-creeping spread beyond original intent in all areas of federal authority, maybe they can claim some credit for slowing it down or reversing it in some cases. But it didn't stop Wokeness, it didn't even stop Civil Rights itself for that matter. Even a good number of the most diehard originalists will still sacrifice their convictions on the altar of Civil Rights.

Civil Rights is indeed a good lesson in how "politics lie downstream from culture" is not entirely true, and culture often lies downstream from politics. I agree that is a point which needs to be emphasized, but I don't think advocating for watered down Civil Rights is at all a feasible political solution. It is both too radical and not radical enough. I should read his book, maybe I'll change my mind but I doubt it.

  1. The book isn’t very interesting. It blamed the grand tide of liberal history, spuriously, on a handful of largely irrelevant historical figures. Yes, Hanania’s understanding of their ideas and their entry into the academy in some cases is - as I think even Nathan Robinson admitted - surprisingly good. But as a whole it’s not a persuasive argument. More importantly, even if it’s true, it doesn’t really matter. Hanania’s “plan” is no more workable than anyone else’s. “Repeal the civil rights act” is no more realistic than Moldbug’s “just elect a right-wing FDR, bro”.

  2. Hanania angers people on the left and right. On the left he’s been depersoned after his old commenting account was doxxed (and was already saying unsayable things on Twitter before). On the right he’s committed to loudly discussing the hypocrisies, strategic failures and general emptiness of the “dissident right” as it exists among very online cons today.

    Who’s in Hanania’s camp? Maybe Andrew Sullivan types, although Hanania’s too openly radical and socially conservative for Sullivan, even though they agree on most things. But Sullivan is really a distinctly late-Boomer-early-Gen-X (Xoomer?) ideology, I can’t imagine many people under 40 read him and he’s not influential in conservative circles.

  1. Could you link me to Nathan Robinson on Hanania? Google didn't get me anything more than a tweet dunking on him.
  2. He doesn't want to repeal the original Civil Rights Act. Just the 1992 one. And that's after overturning Griggs.
  3. Outside of that point.. yeah, everything you said sounds true. Thank you. I am satisfied now.

Hanania is too much of an intellectual, he's bad at the politics game. He doesn't know how to be tactfully silent. He constantly goes around attacking people's sacred cows, often somewhat disingenuously: 'look at how South Korea has porn bans, tight abortion restrictions and the lowest fertility rate on the planet - checkmate trads'. As if South Korea could be described as having 'traditional gender roles', it's one of the most feminist countries on the planet.

He constantly goes around irritating people, calling conservatives low IQ. The tone of his writing is often excessively confrontational or it'll have a clickbait title that goes further than what the text argues. He's a smart troll IMO.

I agree that the Origins of Woke is useful and could be effective if implemented but Hanania has not been good at marketing himself except to the small set of intellectual, contrarian rightwingers who follow him. He even apologized and backed down on the Huffington matter, when that was possibly the one time he should've lashed out against a leftward enemy. Strategically speaking, apologizing to enemies and attacking allies gets you sidelined by the rest of the team.

I agree that the Origins of Woke is useful and could be effective if implemented but Hanania has not been good at marketing himself except to the small set of intellectual, contrarian rightwingers who follow him. He even apologized and backed down on the Huffington matter, when that was possibly the one time he should've lashed out against a leftward enemy. Strategically speaking, apologizing to enemies and attacking allies gets you sidelined by the rest of the team.

It was the right thing to do because it made the author of that hit piece look worse and like a bully, and probably otherwise the book deal may have been cancelled. Hanania came off as magnanimous. Apologizing is not always a mistake. Even Trump apologized a few times.

As if South Korea could be described as having 'traditional gender roles', it's one of the most feminist countries on the planet.

Certainly not by the standards of the OECD, which is is a reasonable comparison for the US. The current President was in large part propelled forward by an anti-feminist youth movement, something basically nonexistent throughout the west, all countries with better birthrates than Korea.

As if South Korea could be described as having 'traditional gender roles', it's one of the most feminist countries on the planet.

What do you base that on? Korea has a very active feminist movement, but they're very different from Western feminists, often complain about Western feminism's irrelevance to their issues, and "radical feminism" in South Korea could basically be described as WGTOW - in response to the very patriarchal gender norms in that society, a lot of women see no benefit to getting married. In comparison to places like Africa and the Middle East, or even South America, sure, Korea is quite "feminist," in the sense that significant numbers of women have the option of opting out. But compared to the West? No, not so much.

This is like the distinction between Maoism and Stalinism. There are practical and ideological differences but they're still different kinds of Marxism-Leninism. Different kinds of feminism are still feminism. WGTOW is feminist, just as MGTOW is anti-feminist.

How can SK be a very patriarchal society if the women refuse to marry because they don't see benefits to it??? Women are half of society. In real patriarchal societies, women absolutely do see benefits to marriage - having protection, being genuinely accepted by society (including other women), higher status, all kinds of things. There's a genuine consensus on the roles of men and women. In real patriarchal societies you don't see legal equality between the sexes, let alone ministries of gender equality.

South Korea is not as feminist as Sweden but it is still very feminist.

How can SK be a very patriarchal society if the women refuse to marry because they don't see benefits to it???

Because the women we're talking about, who opt out, are a very small percentage. The vast majority (of men and women) do conform to Korea's very traditional gender norms.

South Korea is not as feminist as Sweden but it is still very feminist.

Again, what do you base this on? And by that I mean, do you have any actual knowledge of what you are talking about?

I'm asking how you count Korea as "one of the most feminist country on the planet." Have you lived in Korea? Do you have any engagement at all with Korean politics and society? I have, and do. I do not claim to be an expert and I haven't been there in a while, so if you have more recent information, update me, but you seem to be just throwing that out there because, like, some Korean women complain about patriarchy and they have a (mostly toothless and on the chopping block) cabinet position that gave lip service to women's rights. I do not think you know anything about Korea or how feminist it is other than maybe you saw some Youtube videos about Korean women opting out of marriage and you had a kneejerk reaction to learning that they created a "Ministry of Gender Equality and Family" in 1998. But prove me wrong and tell me more about Korean feminism.

The vast majority (of men and women) do conform to Korea's very traditional gender norms.

They clearly don't. Remember that the context here is that Hanania points out 'SK's fertility is so incredibly low'. This is in direct opposition to the notion that it's a patriarchal society, which necessarily implies that women's role is in the home, raising children! If it were a patriarchal society, women would be at home, raising children. Not merely expected to be at home raising children but actually raising children like they did 30-40 years ago. Raising children requires having children, which South Koreans don't do anymore. You cannot have a 'norm' if people don't follow it.

I don't care if you've been to South Korea, that doesn't matter a bit. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of South Koreans who would of course declare that it's a very patriarchal society. They've lived there their whole lives. Do you doubt that millions of South Koreans would also agree with me, saying that it's a very feminist country? Experience is not helpful here.

South Korea has intense, radically feminist websites like Megalia or Womad. They have the 4B movement. They have extremely low birthrates. It's a feminist country.

Experience is not helpful here.

Experience and first- and second-hand knowledge is always superior to hot-takes gleaned from the Internet. Do you actually know anything about Megalia or Womad, besides the fact that they exist?

So basically you don't know anything about Korea, except that based on declining birthrates, it's very feminist. That would make Japan also one of the "most feminist countries in the world." You define "very feminist" as "having declining birthrates," dismissing any other factors.

I think you are unwilling to walk back a dubious claim you made based on spurious evidence.

You define "very feminist" as "having declining birthrates," dismissing any other factors.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Birthrates can decline for other reasons than feminism. Go have a look at Japan's fertility rate, it fell for a while during the chaos of the Meiji Restoration. But then it absolutely plummets immediately after WW2: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033777/fertility-rate-japan-1800-2020/

Guess what kinds of social changes happened in Japan after WW2, relating to the role of women in society?

If there was a massive plague in Korea that was sterilizing people, I'd ascribe the fall in birthrates to that. If there was a huge famine, a war... but there isn't a huge famine or a war. What else could possibly be happening than feminism to explain this effect? Urbanization and industrialization? Urbanization and industrialization that only suddenly and drastically decrease fertility after full equality of the sexes is inserted into the Japanese constitution (and Korean constitution for that matter)? Urbanization and industrialization are important and do effect fertility but so does feminism, to a greater extent.

See the exact same trend in Korea - something clearly happened in 1945 where the trendlines changed massively: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1070601/crude-birth-rate-south-korea-historical/

We see the Korean War, a brief post-war baby boom and then constant decline. Note that Korea and Japan were industrializing prior to 1945, with very limited effects on fertility.

Japan is also a very feminist country. I have been there. The status of women is very high in Japan (that much is visible from anime), wives feel free to spend their husband's money, ghost them, disrespect them and so on.

Is it western, girlboss feminism? No. But that's not the only kind of feminism. Different cultures can express feminism in different ways. Surely you could imagine a world where men have great economic power but minimal social power, are you going to say that's a patriarchy?

Stop putting words in my mouth. Birthrates can decline for other reasons than feminism

Glad we agree.

Guess what kinds of social changes happened in Japan after WW2, relating to the role of women in society?

Yes, that modernization, entry of women into the workforce, birth control and other factors has generally resulted in declining birthrates in industrial countries is not in dispute. Whether or not that is a good thing is certainly debatable. But your specific claim was that Korea is "one of the most feminist countries in the world." It's not.

The status of women is very high in Japan (that much is visible from anime)

I cannot tell if you're serious.

wives feel free to spend their husband's money, ghost them, disrespect them and so on.

Wives have traditionally controlled the household purse strings since long before Westernization. That is a very traditional gender role in Japan and Korea.

As for "ghosting and disrespecting," I'm sure that happens, just as there is a catalog of abuses and grievances about how typical Japanese men treat women.

Is it western, girlboss feminism? No. But that's not the only kind of feminism. Different cultures can express feminism in different ways. Surely you could imagine a world where men have great economic power but minimal social power, are you going to say that's a patriarchy?

No, but I'm going to say you don't have a coherent idea of what feminism is, nor of Korean (or apparently, Japanese) society. You just see anime girls and some anecdotes you don't really understand and conclude "Super feminist country."

More comments

Korea's very traditional gender norms

What are they? Have Koreans just been having 1-2 children top for the last 300 years and now that a few 'feminists' have defected and had 0 children the balance tipped toward a shrinking population? Or what is the reason for such low birth-rates despite very traditional gender norms?

I think Hanania embodies a lot of the frustration some people have with the online dissident right as a bandwagon-based ideology. Abortion is a great example. Nobody in NrX except some fringe tradcaths who weren’t even part of the main movement cared about abortion. Very few people on the “alt right” circa 2015-2018 cared about abortion. To almost every very online internet dissident rightist, abortion was either irrelevant or a good thing for various reasons. Then, as soon as Trump’s justices reversed Roe, suddenly it became “cool” to be anti abortion. The very same classical statue avatar types that didn’t care two years prior were reposting the “aborted gf” /pol/ (or was it r9k?) meme unironically and sending pretty vicious death threats to Hanania because he essentially said that abortion doesn’t matter, the hardcore pro-life position is unpopular with voters, and the whole thing is bad for the right in the long term. I doubt most of these guys are attending mass every Sunday, it was pure contrarianism, the right got one (pointless, backfiring) “win” and they had to ‘defend it’ by threatening Hanania for his milquetoast NrX opinions that were the default position in that very same movement not a few years before. Trump will be the same if he wins again, all the 2017 optimism will surge back until it turns out that again he will accomplish nothing.

And in truth there are a lot of issues that are similar. What I think Hanania is arguing for (poorly, sometimes) is essentially Steve Bannon’s 2015/2016 plan. And while Trump fucked it up, it is probably still the best plan the right has. At least it’s a realistic, possibly achievable plan to make some kind of positive impact on the lives of Americans. I feel Hanania’s frustration that there seem to be a lot of people on the online right who don’t really care about that anymore, and would prefer to retreat into esoteric shitposting and doomscrolling instead of doing anything, while hoping (as all failed radicals do) for some kind of crisis that will surely pave the way for their political ascension.

Then, as soon as Trump’s justices reversed Roe, suddenly it became “cool” to be anti abortion.

This is (in theory) a good instinct strategically, since it makes sense to be unified. Leninist organizations are actually politically effective in part due to democratic centralism. When the leadership decides something, that's it, they all go along with it. They don't get bogged down in endless debates and division like other radical socialist/anarcho-socialist groups. That never gets anything done.

Now in this case, there are serious problems because Trump became the effective leader of the right and was almost totally worthless for the right-wing cause as you say. He was 'monitoring the situation' and cutting taxes rather than making decisive blows to the deep state or patronizing supporters to build up a right-wing power base in the institutions. Even so, he's still really useful to the right, he's a figure they can rally around, he can bring boomers onside, he can unite the right against their enemies in the left, he can even serve as a martyr if imprisoned. Breaking the idols of the enemy is an important political function, it shows that you're strong and they're weak. Anyway, Trump's age means he won't be around for much longer.

Internal division is poison, even worse than ineffective leadership. Hanania is fine arguing for the Bannon plan, his book has good ideas - just don't introduce division and spark conflicts in a political movement.

Is South Korea all that feminist? Their current president was elected on a platform that included a promise to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality, and his most committed supporters are vociferously anti-feminist. Hard to imagine such a man getting elected in, say, Sweden.

Are American political and social institutions really that liberal if Trump became president?

Agreed it is nonsense to consider Korea an exceptionally feminist society, at least for the developed world, and they genuinely do have a very large anti-feminist movement that played a big role in the last election. It should be said though the Ministry of Gender Equality wore a lot of people's patience thin for non-ideological reasons, like their attempts to ban videogames, or reduce prostitution by issuing checks to anyone who promised not to visit a prostitute.

The thing with SK is that the people you are talking about are a combination of the longstanding grievance about the men only mandatory military service and a reaction to a radical form of feminism holding significant power. Online communities like Megalia have had huge impact on the local incarnation of the movement and made it look (and sometimes be) insane.

Imagine if mainstream feminism was led by a women version of 4chan, goreposting, TND and all.

Not to say that the feminists don't have any good points, but rather that this is a very divided society when it comes to sex issues. The Korean Overton window is much more widely open than the Swedish one on this. Hardcore misandrists and misogynists are nontrivial political forces there.

If you have a Ministry of Gender Equality in the first place...

I see Sweden has had such a Minister since the 1950s, so South Korea isn't competing with them. Even so, South Korea shouldn't be characterized as a country with traditional gender roles.

Argument: Hanania isn’t actually that good of a writer. Counter: neither is [insert popular trash here]. I’m not enough of a masochist to trawl the bestseller list and assess the quality, but I wouldn’t expect much.

Argument: Hanania isn’t that good of a salesman, and was ineffective at marketing his book. Selling a book is plausibly harder than writing it. As far as I know, most books don’t become best-sellers. Perhaps he failed to secure the big-name reviews or publicity stunts that could have catapulted it out of obscurity? Counter: not sure.

Argument: Hanania isn’t actually that good of a thinker, and has been rightfully rejected by discerning audiences. Counter: lol.

This is a joke, in that I don’t think the average book-purchaser is particularly discerning. It’s not a joke, in that I don’t believe he’s as incisive as you seem to. “Walk back Civil rights, just not too far” is a weird argument, but not an exciting one. I want to hear why you find it so compelling!

Making sales requires reaching an audience beyond his normal followers. What is he saying that can bridge that gulf? Does any of it ring true to someone who doesn’t already buy in to his premises?

Like most pundits, he's hit or miss. I agree with him about crime, IQ, and so on , but he's probably wrong about obesity. It's interesting how in 2021 he found a following in an otherwise saturated market of Twitter politics by capturing the small but influential anti-populist, post-neocon center-right niche that had been underserved by the dominant post-Covid , Trump-era populist consensus. Richard rejected the anti-vaxers , but also rejected the pro-mask and pro-mandate side, which was the elite position to take that made him allies with important, wealthy like-minded people in tech and VC. Same for rejecting Jan 6th. it's a small niche but its adherents are people with large platforms, like Marc Andreessen, Musk, and Chamath which helped his niche ideas spread, much more so than had he parroted stale populist talking points like everyone else.

His book does not need to sell that many copies, as he has good income from substack, donors, and the people who read his book are important and help spread its message to those in high positions of power and influence. It was never intended to be as big of a seller compared to a talk radio host's book. it's somewhere in-between a mainstream book and an academic book.

I find it compelling because his explanation for how government action led to wokeness makes perfect sense. Most conservatives believe the ideology came about organically, when it was created after the fact to justify nonsense being imposed by courts. Also, admittedly, I'm guilty of motivated reasoning. I'm desperate for absolutely any kind of political solution that isn't radical.

He needs to reach people who think wokeness is bad, but don't understand why every single institution has adopted it. The book explains why.

My view is that wokeness uses whatever means are available to gain power, it literally is based on analyzing power relations and taking advantage of them. Specific government regulation is just one way to do it, but there are many other examples how they could use different ideas and angles to gain power in institutions ranging from forum communities to organized religions as with now with potential schism in Catholich Curch over attitude toward gay sex of catholic priests of all things. There is no need for Civil Rights act in order to take over moderation of knitting community.

One can also see it in the social technology of intersectionality. They have multiple angles to use ranging from race, through sex, sexual orientation as well as other categories such as disabilities, gender, being fat and so forth including plain old economic Marxism. They use ides from radical feminism, critical race theory, queer theory or postcolonial studies and more utilizing very similar template of oppressed/oppressor dynamics. In this sense woke can spread everywhere from US using mostly guilt of racism but also in UK or France praying on guilt from colonialism but also in Eastern Europe using feminism but also India where they can point to caste system and other issues.

He needs to reach people who think wokeness is bad, but don't understand why every single institution has adopted it. The book explains why.

I did not read the book, so does he have some answers of not only for breath of institutions affected but also international reach of the ideas? Because Civil Rights will not cut it as it is too narrow of a scope of ideas as well as geography.

Well, damn. I wasn't even thinking in an international context.

I only got halfway through the book, then took a break to focus on my work. I pick it up when I'm procrastinating, which is also when I made this post. I will come back here if I finish and he does bring that up.

He needs to reach people who think wokeness is bad, but don't understand why every single institution has adopted it. The book explains why.

The problem here is that he viscerally hates that would be audience, and would sell them down the river for a fancy gummy worm, if that. Speaking as a working-class conservative, not only would I support Hanania being canceled, I would support his execution and gladly volunteer to do it myself. He's that much of a sneering asshole. He's the kind of guy to make racists defend black people to avoid the sheer embarrassment of being associated with him.

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