Links to Consider, 12/16

Rob Henderson on manipulative moralizing; Anton Howes and Matt Brown on steam engine evolution; Scott Alexander's requiem for neoreaction; Rod Dreher on Harvard's soft totalitarianism

Rob Henderson writes,

There seems to be a law of moral conservation. When societies relax their moral attitudes about some transgressions, people fill the void with new ones.

In other words, we keep the level of moral condemnation the same by redefining what is considered immoral.

…Some individuals enjoy broadcasting the misbehavior of others. If all behavior is declared to be okay, people will launch new moral crusades.

Are moral norms just arbitrary—the tools of people who want to exercise power over others? This is reminiscent of the Szazian view that mental illness is an arbitrary label that people use in order to exercise power over others.

On the other hand, anthropologists find what they call moral universals—norms that are common to every culture. This would suggest that moral norms are not arbitrary.

For now, I have to occupy a middle position, albeit with some discomfort. That is, I believe that mental illness is real and that some moral norms are universally appropriate or otherwise strongly justified. But some moral norms and some designations of mental illness seem to be culturally bound, arbitrary, and used by one group to manipulate others.

Anton Howes and Matt Brown write,

Steam power did not begin with the steam engine. Long before seventeenth-century scientists discovered the true nature of vacuums and atmospheric pressure, steam- and heat-using devices were being developed. Here we’ll explore the long, little-known story of how the steam engine evolved. And have fun playing with the ancient devices.

The essay is illustrated with interactive diagrams. Anyone interested in the future of education should take note.

Scott Alexander writes,

Now there’s a broader anti-wokeness coalition that doesn’t require you to be a monarchist, and some recent conservative victories have cast doubt on the thesis that democracy automatically means more and more wokeness forever.

Again, I think neoreaction seduced some people because it was the first place they’d ever come across any of these ideas, and they thought they needed to accept the entire bundle to continue exploring them. Now that they have better standard-bearers, the rest of the bundle doesn’t look as attractive.

I remember when Curtis Yarvin (then as Mencius Moldbug) was alone in interpreting the social justice movement as a Puritan revival and a tool for what he called the Brahmin class (mixing metaphors). Now, there is a lot of space for talking about the use of moral righteousness to exercise power (see Rob Henderson’s piece mentioned above).

Or see Rod Dreher.

Last week, interviewing one of the dissidents jailed for opposing the Communist government of Czechoslovakia, I asked for a list of characteristics of totalitarianism. The first thing the man said was, “When you cannot speak the truth about reality out of fear of consequences.”

This is Harvard! It’s a soft-totalitarian madrassa — and the most important university in the world. You wonder why all the American elites are on the same side ideologically? Because they were trained at these institutions. Because the ideology into which they have been groomed is their normal. Because dissent is not allowed.

Nowadays, everyone sees the water except for the university presidents and the other fish swimming in it.

substacks referenced above:

@

What Ever Happened To Neoreaction?

@

Soft Totalitarianism Comes Washington

@

New Taboos