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 -
White Dudes for Harris
It should be remembered that it was the Democrat party that broke the ice on invoking White Identity Politics directly to muster political support. The Republican party has only ever used proxy rhetoric like "they have to come legally" or "tough on crime", but looking at the recent Convention it's clear the Republican strategy is to go for the Big Tent rather than directly appeal to white voters. It's the Harris campaign that makes the direct appeal to white men, and you would not see an event like this hosted within the Republican party.
This is another indication that we're probably over the hill of Peak Woke that a white identity is acknowledged in a non-critical context:
That's a huge shift in messaging from just a few years ago in the midst of the Floyd riots.
The "masculinity crisis" is probably down mostly to the traditional foundations of masculine identity, what distinguished it fundamentally from femininity going back several thousand years at least, e.g being physically powerful and being good at killing people/animals are less and less relevant than ever in industrial and post-industrial society and are only going to become more so.
Probably not actually "fixable" short of a Kaczsynskian collapse of civilization and why all proposed solutions whether they be left-wing "build a positive masculinity" stuff or right-wing "retvrn" will fail.
This is discounting the fact that we can totally be post-industrial and back to virility and violence.
Indeed this is what most critiques of traditionalism and twitter emulators miss when they caricature it as RETVRN. Tradition is never going back to the past, going backwards or trying to literally go back to past glories, and whenever it is that it fails. Because it is impossible to turn back entropy, because we are not people of the past, we have neither their virtues nor their vices, neither their innocence nor their wisdom.
What tradition is is acknowledgement of eternal truths and their practical, moral, social and metaphysical requirements.
In this case, the fiction you, and modernism, sells of a peaceful society created by industry is a blatant lie. One all too evident now. We do not live in peace, we do not live in civilization, we have only grown more base and brutal with the advent of plenty and the inevitable cthonic pull that came with it. That brutality is sheathed in nice even language and plentiful fast food and video games. But even those are fading and drifting out of grasp under the current of debt, slowly but inevitably moving away like the ship of a lone sailor who dropped overboard and has to resign himself to drowning.
What is more cruel and violent than the plain imposition that you will never own your home, you will never have a loving wife, you will never have a loyal husband, you will never sire children and all you will ever do is pay for pensions working a job you hate while your black rectangle beams images of happier people into your mind as everything in your vicinity including your own life gets slowly but surely worse in every regard. Perhaps the threat of the punishment that awaits you if you dare to contest such a fate?
Some societies treated slaves with more decency than modern man commends in all areas that are not commodified material comfort. But alas, the choice between annihilation and annihilation is not going to tame the youths spirit for very long.
Is is entirely predictable that such an age should be dominated by feminine thinking and modes of existence. But no age is eternal and the troubles created by the desolation of all social structures that require will necessarily wreak the advent of a new age of conquest and grandiose virility.
Our bandit hordes are already here. The warlords that will tame them have already been born. And when they do, earthly notions of equality, sameness and tolerance will go with them.
All this has happened before, and will happen again.
For example an armed mob* coming to your flat, stealing all your stuff, burning building where you lived, maybe also raping you and enslaving? Or just flat-out murdering you for one reason or another?
*with uniforms or not, there are variants of it from Hutu, Hitler and Pol-Pot through Red Army to basically all factions in Syrian War
Also, while you describe pretty fucked up society, basically nowhere situation is as bad or mandatory. And places where situation is worse - that is because they have far too much of virility and violence.
Oh, go away with such redefinitions. Or at least propose new ones to allow distinguishing Los Angeles from what happened in Aleppo and Mariupol and Grozny.
And "civilization" surely includes polities where government did horrible things, if rulers decided to enslave/murder 10% of population it does not imply that we do not live in civilization. In fact civilization is needed for major projects, including "hey, lets murder 10 000 000 people".
You are complaining about badly setup civilisation, if someone promised you that civilisation is cuddly or nice to all population - then you should read something about world.
Which ones you think that fit? For me at least "being enslaved" seems to make it basically impossible. And just lack of material comfort AKA starving to death if things went wrong is in a fact major issue to people. Maybe I am extrapolating too much, but I really appreciate that starving to death is not a real risk to me.
Yes, we can. At cost of things getting far worse. No idea why this would be preferable - I would prefer neither, but I will take fucked up dating market over being murdered by rampaging vikings or starving to death or being oppressed by feudal lord worse than being oppressed now.
I guess that some people imagine themself to be doing the looting and raping or ruling as new lords. In such case, I wish them utter failure of all their plans and deranged imaginations.
I hope this will not happen in lifetime mine, my children or grandchildren - as plan minimum.
Free men are not guaranteed food and shelter.
Worse for who? At cost to whom?
Your personal welfare is immaterial if it's creating people with nothing to lose. And I'm not saying this because I enjoy that this is the case, but because it's the plain truth.
Empires have a natural tendency to do this which is why they're precarious affairs that always seem to create feudal societies in their wake once the source of the advantage that saw them rise dries up.
This is what is happening to our society. You may not live to see the most dramatic of consequences, you may even be able to shelter yourself from much of it, but you are living the consequences all the same.
Really? That is supposed to be benefit over modern citizen?
For start, slaves were not guaranteed food and shelter.
And maybe technically free men are not having such guarantees nowadays, but in practise they have them.
In functional modern societies free men get better food and shelter than slaves in past, even utterly useless ones and criminals. Maybe being slave in some societies was better than being beggar in modern Somalia and Syria but only for some of slave-owning societies.
Minimally competent free men get vastly better food and shelter.
Of all things, social support is not thing that was better for slaves than typical people nowadays. You even initially excluded "that are not commodified material comfort" from supposed benefits.
For anyone not preferring to risk dying from starvation or from raving bandits or being brutally oppressed by local lord.
For whom "post-industrial and back to virility and violence" would be better?
This was broadly understood for thousands of years to be the one advantage of servitude and the one disadvantage of freedom. People with no duties to others are offered no protection.
Free men.
Are you aware about food production nowadays and how it compared to past? And how starvation used to be far more common?
You even claim that benefit of slavery is that you were more likely to eat.
Who you count here? Noble elite class? Rampaging neovikings? Starving peasantry?
Yes I am indeed aware of the industrial revolution.
Anyone who is capable of violence and not beholden to a master usually has a lot to gain in feudal transitions.
Think of Li Zongren and his men, and all his and their peers.
Of course this is also risky, but that's the nature of such times.
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