This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 or as an Emmanuel Goldstein, if they're particularly odious. Think people's attitude toward Shkreli a few years back.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
Well, I've kind of been doing this for a while.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
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.
Sadly, no... just an guy who likes making spaceships...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
Hold on... where was he calling for violence? And for that matter, where is he not seeing the potential good in humanity?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Take the spaceship pill and make me happy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
I'm sorry, what definition of "tolerate" are you using?
No. They disagreed, and clicked the "I disagree" button.
Now this would be a violation of this community's decorum.
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.
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 options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link