3 ms·

I think the crux of the current debate is the tension between cultural liberalism and cultural socialism. The philosophy of the cultural liberals is to remove

I think the crux of the current debate is the tension between cultural liberalism and cultural socialism. The philosophy of the cultural liberals is to remove restrictions that inhibit people from living the social lives they want. The cultural socialists want to use the power of institutions to distribute a culture across the population. They believe their culture is societally optimal so reducing liberties to propagate it is morally justified. I’m sure most peoples beliefs lie somewhere in between the two. But the cultural socialism maximalists in the west have been getting louder and louder and it’s beginning to terrify me. I predict in the next 5 years, womens’ voting rights will be an actual political topic. It will start with “ironic” jokes and “rational” thinking but will get increasingly normalized in discourse.

UncleMeat 4y ago
We've already seen Thiel float the "the world would be better if women couldn't vote" thing. Far right communities online already express sanitized versions of this belief system. You can see it when far right women end up in discussion spaces. Their participation is ultimately contingent on the approval of the men they are around, with sexist rejections of their contributions showing up frequently. We are already at the "ironic" jokes and "rational" thinking phase. Terrifying.
- dc-programmer 4y ago
  There’s a whole online subculture of women adopting traditional aesthetics and dressing like pilgrims. It’s hard to gauge their sincerity, but they are “converting” to Catholicism and fundamentalist Islam. Being transgressive is definitely cool for disaffected trust fund kids who didn’t get into Deloitte, but I think there are darker undercurrents like you are implying. The real irony in all of this is the post-modern and Marxist influences of the movement. Which is hilarious due to the Red Scare level of hysteria reactionaries have about those ideologies.
  - usrn 4y ago
    I think this subculture you've noticed might actually be part of that "Red Scare." I really don't like the "cultural socialism" phrase. There are too many connotations in it and it's probably too vague for everyone. The way I see it there are really three extremes you can take on any political issue: One is an authoritarian preservation (or restoration) of culture, another is the authoritarian deconstruction (or liberation) of culture, and one is the libertarian position (which is almost moderate by definition; the individual communities are left to figure out what they want.) The socialists/communists/bolsheviks (and in a more moderate sense, progressives) or in other words "The Left" are near the "authoritarian deconstruction" extreme. Examples of these might be the American progressives trying to take control of children's sexuality away from parents or the people writing laws against the cast system in India. The Fascists, monarchists, religious fundamentalists, and in a moderate sense conservatives, or in other words "The Right" are near the "authoritarian preservation" extreme. Examples of these include the Taliban, America First etc. The libertarians/liberals/anarchists are what we already know. Something I don't think people appreciate about them though is that they allow for consensus in some situations where none is achievable. People often confuse them for the Right because of the US's tradition of liberty and because of the freedom of association thing. They confuse them for the left because of how destructive anarchy is. None of these extremes are ideal. All degenerate into something horrible if you lean hard into any one. It's much easier to understand your own position on any topic along with someone else's because they become a vector of sorts made up of these. I think you've grouped the two authoritarian extremes under "cultural socialists" and are confused because they're different phenomena (often reactions to each other.)
    - dc-programmer 4y ago
      I’m definitely not scared about a small subculture of Brooklyn art chicks and permanently online disaffected 20 year old woman. I brought it up because monied interests have taken an interest in the aesthetic. The question is, why? Edit responding to your edit: I 100% agree that any extreme is bad. A society with no restrictions would be anarchy (note mores and peer pressure are means of restriction). But in a democratic society, anti-democratic ideas must be resisted. Once the structures of power are changed, it’s almost impossible to reverse. Therefore, I believe it is imperative to call out these ideas for what they are. Also I disagree that progressives fall in the same bucket as leftists. All leftists are authoritarian leaning but progressives can be liberal or authoritarian. I don’t think it’s usefully either to endlessly categorize political movements. If you are partial to post-modern thought, you could say categorizing things is a way of exerting power of them. This has clearly been the runbook historically of dismantling the left in America. This is mostly self afflicted due to the tendency of the left to over intellectualize things, but there has been a conscious effort by provocateurs to infiltrate left wing groups and cause discord.

UncleMeat 4y ago

We've already seen Thiel float the "the world would be better if women couldn't vote" thing. Far right communities online already express sanitized versions of this belief system. You can see it when far right women end up in discussion spaces. Their participation is ultimately contingent on the approval of the men they are around, with sexist rejections of their contributions showing up frequently. We are already at the "ironic" jokes and "rational" thinking phase. Terrifying.

dc-programmer 4y ago
There’s a whole online subculture of women adopting traditional aesthetics and dressing like pilgrims. It’s hard to gauge their sincerity, but they are “converting” to Catholicism and fundamentalist Islam. Being transgressive is definitely cool for disaffected trust fund kids who didn’t get into Deloitte, but I think there are darker undercurrents like you are implying. The real irony in all of this is the post-modern and Marxist influences of the movement. Which is hilarious due to the Red Scare level of hysteria reactionaries have about those ideologies.
- usrn 4y ago
  I think this subculture you've noticed might actually be part of that "Red Scare." I really don't like the "cultural socialism" phrase. There are too many connotations in it and it's probably too vague for everyone. The way I see it there are really three extremes you can take on any political issue: One is an authoritarian preservation (or restoration) of culture, another is the authoritarian deconstruction (or liberation) of culture, and one is the libertarian position (which is almost moderate by definition; the individual communities are left to figure out what they want.) The socialists/communists/bolsheviks (and in a more moderate sense, progressives) or in other words "The Left" are near the "authoritarian deconstruction" extreme. Examples of these might be the American progressives trying to take control of children's sexuality away from parents or the people writing laws against the cast system in India. The Fascists, monarchists, religious fundamentalists, and in a moderate sense conservatives, or in other words "The Right" are near the "authoritarian preservation" extreme. Examples of these include the Taliban, America First etc. The libertarians/liberals/anarchists are what we already know. Something I don't think people appreciate about them though is that they allow for consensus in some situations where none is achievable. People often confuse them for the Right because of the US's tradition of liberty and because of the freedom of association thing. They confuse them for the left because of how destructive anarchy is. None of these extremes are ideal. All degenerate into something horrible if you lean hard into any one. It's much easier to understand your own position on any topic along with someone else's because they become a vector of sorts made up of these. I think you've grouped the two authoritarian extremes under "cultural socialists" and are confused because they're different phenomena (often reactions to each other.)
  - dc-programmer 4y ago
    I’m definitely not scared about a small subculture of Brooklyn art chicks and permanently online disaffected 20 year old woman. I brought it up because monied interests have taken an interest in the aesthetic. The question is, why? Edit responding to your edit: I 100% agree that any extreme is bad. A society with no restrictions would be anarchy (note mores and peer pressure are means of restriction). But in a democratic society, anti-democratic ideas must be resisted. Once the structures of power are changed, it’s almost impossible to reverse. Therefore, I believe it is imperative to call out these ideas for what they are. Also I disagree that progressives fall in the same bucket as leftists. All leftists are authoritarian leaning but progressives can be liberal or authoritarian. I don’t think it’s usefully either to endlessly categorize political movements. If you are partial to post-modern thought, you could say categorizing things is a way of exerting power of them. This has clearly been the runbook historically of dismantling the left in America. This is mostly self afflicted due to the tendency of the left to over intellectualize things, but there has been a conscious effort by provocateurs to infiltrate left wing groups and cause discord.