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 right wing should do patronage of good culture and right wing culture and abandon an ethos of disengagement and libertarian ethos.
Why?
Because if you know artists, they care first and foremost about doing their things and getting money and recognition. The reason the left has been so successful its because it is willing to provide support, and to deprive them for not aligning with them.
Secondly, people who are actually on your side will also act based on incentives.
And thirdly, because the end result is desirable. A culture of just whining, about leftist cultural output is impotent. There is nothing wrong with complaining about what is bad, but you should also promote what is good. We need a society that promotes good art and and good culture. There is more to life than line going up. And if you don't try to fill that vacuum, someone else will.
What this means effectively? A right wing goverment should defund leftist artists and promote rightist artists and allow people to join the side. Soon you will discover that many artists are actually rightists who were afraid to express themselves.
It also means promoting art programs.
Also some kind of art tends to be of a more negative and leftist form like rap and modern art. Not all but more commonly.
Beyond the goverment, right wingers and not leftists should care more about networking to promote art that isn't left wing. It doesn't have to be explicitly political. Lord of the Rings for example qualifies. Just accurate adaptation of great classics of western literature without left wing ideological blinders would also qualify.
Putting regulations in place to make them illegal or underpromote far left racebending art and make them less financially viable, and giving incentives for art that respects the source material for example.
Of course, someone could object to a certain particularly aggressive moves in terms of what you promote and not promote, and in being excessively far to the right and excessively intolerant. And I could even agree with them in some cases.
However, in the current status quo, things are so lopsized in the direction of the left that it is pushing the culture landscape in a more pluralistic phase to have less race bending far left culture being promoted and more right wing.
This means that more right wing patronage of art is good even from a more neutral, pluralistic standpoint. Which is a general pattern of the culture war, even outside art. If someone is fine with leftist domination and escalation then a position in favor of an impotent disengaged right makes sense. We don't have a sufficiently neutral and moderate status quo though for defence of the status quo to be the neutral position.
The entire art world, root and branch, all the institutions and nearly all the artists, is left wing. There's nothing on the right to subsidize.
That is an exaggeration. Actually my post was partly inspired by some similar complaints by George Alexopoulos (GPrime850) who is on the right although of more libertarianish bent.
Also, there is enough money in right wing circles to create institutions. And you can change current institutions.
Well, someone could complain that they weren't right wing enough, but the daily wire got some films made. If they aren't good enough to qualify point is that there is enough money among right wingers to fund this.
This attitude of hopelessness stinks and ensures that nothing will change. It is a dishonorable way to engage with the world for any political or cultural movement.
Also, it makes the act of complaining a waste of time. What is the point if you got no positive vision?
They will be laughingstocks. Not just because they're right wing, but because, having to start from zero, they will suck. If you manage to keep one around long enough, it will be suborned.
If you do (e.g. the way DeSantis is trying with New College) , they will be cut out of the art world as a whole. You will not be able to get prestigious or even competent staff or faculty, any students or clients will be shunned until the institution returns to the fold.
That nothing will change is what engenders the attitude of hopelessness.
Fine arts only survive because of subsidy. A lot of it is private subsidy from what I call "Left, Inc.", but a lot is government subsidy. I favor zeroing that out whenever possible; trying to subsidize right-wing art is doomed to fail and will most likely just hand money to the left.
I might be missing something here, but wouldn't that be the point? To create a completely separate status hierarchy?
I mean, yeah, the existing artistic elite isn't going to jump ship. Do you want them to? That sounds like you're asking for your new institution to be marched through all over again. Plus, these aren't the natural members you're looking for in your new institution. This is a high risk/high reward venture and you don't want a bunch of established people with baggage from the old institution. But do you know who totally goes for high risk/high reward strategies with a very high chance of death (social in this case) in exchange for a chance at status?
Young men with no prospects. In every age, in every nation, there are young, low status men looking for a way to take big risks to jump up the status hierarchy. Whether it be a colonial expedition, the rap scene in the Bronx, or a Somalian pirate joint-stock venture, there's always takers. As a bonus, this is a decent chunk of the art world's demographic, this lets you sap your opponent of the natural energy that comes with an influx of youth.
More options
Context Copy link
So on one hand you promote this vision of the omnipotent left and a hopeless situation where any effort will inevitably fail. But on the other hand you say you favor zeroing out goverment subsidy and left inc.
I understand you have a libertarianish ideology. Why isn't that hopeless, too? And who is going to stop the private subsidy from Left inc?
If the left is so powerful, why are they going to let you stop their gravy train?
Actually, it is easier to subsidize right wingers than to stop all subsidies on the left. Plenty of rightists including some rather edgy sources, with more limited reach than if things were completly evenhanded do manage to gain enough donations to keep promoting their political content.
If the people behind platforms like substack, gab, odyssey, rumble shared your perspective, that wouldn't have happened as they wouldn't had bothered to do so. Same with Musk and twitter although not sure about whether censorship has really improved that much there. And if after their first ban, they didn't come back and tried again, or didn't try because others got banned on the right, you wouldn't see some of these people making money even in youtube.
The one dude I mentioned did pretty well. Shadiversity maybe sort of qualifies and his books were decent. Criticaldrinker maybe qualifies as rightist enough, and he also has well reviewed books and these are just internet personalities. Lets just say your perspective of no right wing artists around isn't accurate. Plus, in addition to actual artists who have been there and other talented people who won't suck because they are talented, you could get others who either flip cynically or actually change in a manner that is affected by incentives but doesn't feel to them as a cynical decision.
Of course these people do have some success already, and more having that opportunity would be a good thing.
Those who are determined and try to persevere have a future. The very attitude influences others as well. Have you considered that the attitude you have in the past existed as well and might have influenced things into reaching this point?
Of course, it is also our choice to let your hopelessness infect others. I rather we let it consume you and others who share your perspective alone and the rest wisely reject it. I wouldn't mind if you changed your mind too, but whatever you think, we don't have to follow you.
It is, and nothing. The Left has a crazy web of non-profits and commercial entities, and possibly entirely-phony industries to funnel money from one into the other. For just one example, it's been widely reported that the Wikimedia foundation gets far more money than it needs to keep Wikipedia running. Where's the rest go? Some goes to feather the bed of Wikimedia employees of course, but the largest part of it gets distributed to other non-profits. Wikimedia is basically laundering money intended for what people think is a good cause (funding Wikipedia) into things they probably wouldn't donate to. Multiply that by the number of "front" non-profits, and it's huge. I think it's safe to say that pretty much any donation to a large not-explicitly-right-wing non-profit will end up funding lefty things. And it wouldn't even matter much if individuals stopped contributing, because what they pay for razors and beer and other consumer products would end up being partially donated (as part of a marketing campaign) to various do-gooder organizations which would then do lefty things with them. That's also what would happen if you tried to fund right-wing art without building everything from scratch; you'd end up funding the left.
I would eliminate the tax deduction for gifts to NPOs and I would make the gifts received by NPOs taxable income. Whereas previously a rich person could give 60 dollars and government would effectively match 40 resulting in the NPO getting 100 now if the rich person wants to give the same post tax amount the NPO ends up with 60 of which they need to pay 12 of tax (before deductions for staffing, etc). You cut their resources almost in half.
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