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 -
One of the Most Despicable Characters I’ve Read About in Years, and I Just Read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
Earlier, we talked about the sexual dynamics at play in pledging a sorority, inspired by reading through this series. Now I want to dig into the other major strain of the series: race and Greek Life in Alabama. It’s an interesting article, talking about actual real-life integration of an institution in 2013. We’re talking about the Obama years here, people! This story has everything: hot blonde elites cavorting in grey uniforms, burning crosses, a gay Uncle Tom with a humiliation fetish, a sinister political bloc designed to get the best seats at football games, a moral universe that doesn’t seem capable of considering any race outside of ADOS and Sons of the Confederacy, and a band of Nice White Liberals who didn’t seem to ask any black kids about what they wanted. I’ll be offering money-quotes and commentary below, to our author:
We, of course, know about The Machine, because the UA alums among our own membership brought it up immediately. I do think that it needs to be situated within a larger late-nineteenth century yen for secret societies in American colleges at the time. This is when Skull and Bones and Wolf’s Head got big at Yale, along with imitators at Cornell in Quill and Dagger and the Friars at UPenn. It was a common tradition across the country. Having a mutual secret is one of the best ways to bind people together, and I truly believe in the aspect of the agoge that requires young men to commit minor crimes together to bond. At the time of its formation, The Machine was pretty normal within the broader college landscape, and it only developed into what it is today slowly.
As an org-of-orgs, the Machine could hold an internal election to determine SGA president, give its endorsement to the Greek Life membership, and then leverage that support to win a majority of votes. Win the room of frat bosses, you win the support of their supporters, and with a few girlfriends and hangarounds, you win the whole thing. With a third of votes already in their pocket, and turnout low, they’d only need to persuade a small number of outside students. Given that people have a documented desire to vote for the winner, and to associate themselves with powerful secret societies, the Machine endorsement rumor probably brings in some unaffiliated cuck voters on its own. But note that this is only possible inasmuch as your orgs favor loyalty to each other and to the Machine over any other ideological predilection or occupation. They have to be loyal, a trait already prized and selected for in fraternity brothers. For decades the Machine functioned just on the votes of the fraternities, until the university was integrated by force during the civil rights era...
This is sort of the path of American liberalism in a microcosm. Blacks, seeking to escape the yolk of white supremacy, ally with white women, seeking rights. Traditional white male power centers break up this alliance by co-opting white women, given them some power to prevent them from voting with the Blacks. It’s almost too good to be true!
The major sororities and fraternities at UA remained entirely white until 2013, when the university administration finally forced the issue. First they tried being subtle:
Imagine being the girl who was flagged as great sorority material, the hottest most demure black valley girl they could find. What a bizarre affectation. I can't imagine wanting to integrate, not a school or a business or even a restaurant, but what is ultimately a friend group. Going in and knowing that at some level, they're only friends with you because the admin told them they had to be. It would be psychological torture! Why would anyone want to be that person? The moment university admin got involved, any sane person with self respect would withdraw! The Los Angeles Times report on the matter does note that:
Which was an interesting omission from the substack series. In the 2024 liberal moral universe, it is much easier to limit your actors to ADOS and Sons of the Confederacy, to the most obvious cases in your universe of racists and victims of racism. When you start including other groups, like Asian girls or Arab guys, things get complicated. What does it mean that the sororities would accept a Chinese girl, this despite the (at the time) liberal Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessy
After all, southern black girls probably have vastly more in common with southern white girls than either have with Chinese girls. The white and black girls probably have families more rooted in the USA, similar cuisines and traditions, similar religious affiliations. This blindspot towards non-black minorities is one of my perpetual frustrations with American liberal attempts at intellectualizing race and racism. The book Caste by Isabel Wilkerson, widely feted, frustrated me to no end on this count. Its comparison between race and the hindu Caste system was hopeless facile, and represented a deep misunderstanding of how a caste system functioned. Caste systems aren’t about the people on the top or the people on the bottom, they’re about the people in the middle: by convincing those in the middle to accept their subjugation to the strong in exchange for their elevation over the weak. Consider the response from the Greeks when the Ottoman Empire abolished the order of races:
The role of Asian and Hispanic girls is under explored in the piece, while blacks are the most common minority at UA, they’re not the only ones! Looking at edge cases is how you determine things! Discrimination hits the black girl but not the Asian girl. Why? Racism is one explanation, and the one that the Nice White Liberals settle on. Ultimately they’d find another valley girl Jackie Robinson and inform the sororities in no uncertain terms that they must be friends with her:
Now, what’s missing from this story, and an alternative explanation I’d like to offer: the Divine Nine.
These traditional black houses had their own organizations, and may soon boast a president among their national alums. Nowhere in the news stories about the liberal “heroes” trying to integrate the top sororities at UA were there any voices from these organizations. No one seemed to want to ask them their opinions. But consider: when you take the hot, rich, sophisticated, smart black girls and you go to them and say “hey, you’re good enough that you can rush the White Sorority instead of being stuck in the Black sorority;” you’re implicitly denigrating the Black sorority, and you’re permanently dooming it to obscurity. Without the hot, rich, Black girls coming in, the Black sorority will slowly lose prestige and power, left with only the poor, ugly, or those obsessed with race issues, a second tier pick. I’d love to know if the presidents of the BGLOs wanted the white orgs to integrate, or if they demanded that they not integrate behind the scenes.
The founders of the Hells Angels, who only admitted white and hispanic members, said later that they had the restrictive clause in order to avoid conflict with the black prison gangs over membership: the blacks would have responded with violence if the Hells Angels had recruited black members, as blacks prisoners were a patrimony of the black gangs and an integrated gang would threaten their hold over them. Similarly, promising black freshmen were the patrimony of the BLGOs. It was in the interest of the BLGOs for the best black candidates to end up in their houses, the worst outcome for them is for the white orgs to admit only the cream of the black crop. The last thing they want is for the university to handpick a hottie with a 4.0+ and pluck her out of BLGO life into the “real” sorority. That kills the BLGOs, slowly or quickly, knocking them out of top-tier contention. Suddenly the BLGOs are the only racially discriminatory greek orgs, and they are only racially discriminatory Greek orgs, they offer nothing else. It’s the tragedy of how affirmative action has impacted the formation of black communities in the United States, the Talented Tenth is pulled off and fawned over by whites, handed easy diversity positions, when they could be improving the quality of black neighborhoods and communities. Rather than the university demanding that the BGLOs be accorded more prestige within the system, they chose to tell the white kids: you have to have at least a few black friends. Another token black friend forced into the frats:
Enter Jared
Reading this substack author talk about Jared Hunter filled me with a level of disgust it is hard for me to properly articulate. I’m still grappling with just how much I hate this guy from his words and the descriptions of his actions, given that he is just some kid. A portrait of a grasping uppity hanger on:
Tons of kids come into undergrad with these kinds of political ambitions. And Jared was far from the only one to come in willing to do the most disgusting things to achieve them. Maybe, like Caro said of LBJ, he took a perverse pride in wheeling and dealing, in being cynical, as though it made him better than the others. But I just can’t stomach this:
God this kind of whinging bugs me. There’s something so self-satisfied about this, knowingly taking advantage of systems that you claim to be better than. There’s a full throated defense one can make of The Machine, or any other institution whose past you don’t approve of. And if you want to make it I’m not going to mock you. But this is just being an open Uncle Tom, and expecting Johny Reb to reward you for playing coon while the white liberals tear up at how oppressed you’ve been. Disgusting.
White kids wanting to have friends who are like them is a Human Rights Violation. They don’t like white kids who aren’t like them either! And Jared was just saying how much he was just like those guys.
One does have to laugh at shooting himself in the foot. But what’s so wrong with the myth of General Lee? I’ve talked before about growing up, in the 90s in the North, with myths of General Lee giving up his train seat to an old black woman. There’s a version of Lee, and the war between the states!, that lets us all have our pride and our brotherhood! That’s how you bring the country together! But Jared doesn’t want to make this argument, he wants to victimize himself for liberal sympathy while dancing in shoe polish for his frat brothers.
There are obvious, mechanical reasons why someone may not want to live in a frat house with a homosexual. That is not discrimination in and of itself. It’s not clear to me what a gay kid would really want out of fraternity life, other than, you know, the obvious. As the series continued, I was increasingly convinced that Jared had a weird fetish.
He would ultimately win the Machine nomination for SGA president, and win the position, but when he got there all they seem to want is to get good tickets to the football games:
Ultimately any successful political organization has, as its number one goal, winning. Movements with ideological convictions among its members are unstable, prone to splitters. A laser focus on winning and maintaining power, on in group loyalty, allows for the careful husbanding of power, and its spending on carefully metered goals as needed. The author comes to a similar conclusion:
Jared would finish up his character arc dropping out of SGA and Greek Life after getting a DUI going to Taco Bell and coming out as gay. He’d go on to law school at noted anti-racist institution…Washington and Lee (Shock horror!), where he no doubt remains the token black gay conservative. I’m convinced one of the reasons conservative find affirmative action so distressing is their experience with affirmative action in conservative politics. Nowhere can a black person rise farther with less talent than by claiming to be a Republican. Clarence Thomas is both the most eloquent arguer against, and the most persuasive example against, affirmative action. Jared might be a close second, though.
The problem with Southern whites wanting to venerate a lie about Robert E. Lee is there are in fact, plenty of Southern white people to be proud of from the time of the Civil War, except of course, most of them didn't fight on the side of the slavers in a war to perpetuate that practice. Which goes against the whole idea that the South isn't allowed to have Southern heroes.
The reality is you can still attempt to defend Robert E. Lee. You just have to defend the actual Robert E. Lee, not the one that existed in the mind of the Dunning School
Now, I know the response to do this is something like, "well, MLK Jr. cheated on his wife" or whatever. But the problem, is most left-leaning people are happy to either say that something like their personal foibles is widely outranked by what they did in their larger life (ie. MLK) or part of their record is a stain that should be criticized (ie. FDR w/ internment), but there's a difference to most people of the worst of left-leaning heroes and the worst y'know, defending slavery.
The reality for neo-Confederates is outside of the whole fighting to defend slavery, most of the Southern leadership during the Civil War that is venerated just didn't...have much to cheer for beyond that. Lee wasn't even a good general.
The statement was "myth", not "lie". Can you specify "a lie about Robert E. Lee" that Southern whites in general want to venerate?
I have been repeatedly told that the history of the Civil War that I grew up on was the "Dunning School", a deceptive attempt to hide the crimes of the South. I've never actually figured out which crimes were hidden from me. I was taught from the start that from the perspective of the South, the Civil War was fought explicitly in defense of Slavery as an institution, but most of the people bringing up the Dunning School claim that denying this was one of the central points of the program. So on the one hand I'm told I've been lied to, and on the other hand the claimed nature of the lie is either unspecified or, in my experience, itself straightforwardly false. I was taught that Robert E Lee was an honorable man who fought ablely for a bad cause, lost, and accepted the verdict of battle with dignity. Which part of that was false?
Which prominent figures on the Union side do you consider worthy of veneration? John Brown? Sherman? Grant? Lincoln? I'm quite fond of all of them, as it happens. Are you?
It's routine for me to encounter left-leaning people who venerate Lenin or Trotsky or some other august personage among the Bolsheviks, or who venerate people generations later who engaged in lawless violence in support of their cause. I encounter more who think these people were just rascally knuckleheads, and have precisely zero knowledge of the horrors they unleashed and championed. I think those people are straightforwardly worse than the modal Robert E Lee admirer, because the people and institutions they venerate were straightforwardly worse than the slaving South. And this, on the understanding that the South richly deserved to have a significant portion of its men ground into worm-food because of the evils they perpetrated. From where I sit, the left doesn't have the slightest claim to moral insight, much less moral superiority. A significant portion of politically-active leftists are isomorphic to actual-literal-and-not-figurative neo-nazis.
My understanding is that his contemporaries disagree with your assessment. Certainly I have never heard of any of the prominent generals fighting against him claiming that he was bad at his job.
The word 'honorable' can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. For someone who is a military leader, his personal conduct seems largely irrelevant, I don't particularly care if he cheated on his wife or (likely) not. Nor do I particularly care that he resigned his commission to the US before taking up arms against them, Stauffenberg broke his oath when he bombed Hitler, and still I find this the least objectionable life decision of his.
Sticking to a code of honor in warfare can be good if the code in question aims to prevent wartime atrocities and preserves the customs of war which limit the hellishness of warfare a bit. Other than that, being a good warrior or soldier has meant very different things at different times in human history, and I would count this more as 'being good at your job' without any value judgement applied.
From my understanding, the slaughter in the US civil war was largely confined to the armies, with less than 10% of the causalities being civilians. The PoW camps on both sides seem harsh by modern standard, but deliberate war crimes seem to be confined to the odd homeopath making baby steps towards death camps.
The "accepted the verdict of battle" is probably where we should give Lee credit, when he had lost, he surrendered rather than continuing to fight a partisan war.
In the end, he fought an unwinnable war for an evil cause. Other people in his place might have been worse, but he seems hardly hero material to me. I think his veneration can be seen as a clear political statement "the South was correct to fight the civil war, too bad it lost". A statue of Lee surrendering would have entirely different connotations.
The US South has provided military leaders from the revolutionary war to the present day, surely there is someone who could be venerated as a hero whose main claim to fame is not that he waged war against the USA to protect slavery?
I agree about Lenin and Trotsky being more evil than Lee. Of course, the most venerated violent figure on the left is Che Guevara, who wisely did not stick around after his revolutions long enough to get his hands dirty to the degree that Lenin did. Personally, I would cut him a bit more slack than Lee. Lee presumably had visited slave plantations and knew exactly what he was fighting for. Guevara had not personally witnessed the Red Terror in Russia. It turns out that communist countries are more repressive and economically poorer than their peers in the long run, and that commie revolutions are thus to be avoided. Still, I would not say he was wrong to oust Batista, just that the ideology which replaced him lead to bad long term outcomes.
The obvious counterexample to Lee is Forrest, who pretty happily ducked into the dishonourable behaviors: a slave trader who wanted to expand new markets in human bodies and treated slaves cruelly even by the standards of his time, at least oversaw and possibly participated in slaughter of individually-surrendered soldiers, signed on as an early member of the KKK and was a major leader in the early days, so on. Even in his everyday businesses he was a bit of a grifter, as minor a fault as that is compared to everything else.
The most charitable things one could say is that he somehow wasn't the worst, with some other southerners being even more reprehensible (along with Henry Wirz, I'll highlight Samuel Ferguson earned their express tickets to hell, within a year the KKK repelled even Forrest); his combination of strong tactical skill and minimal strategic emphasis cost the Confederacy no few lasting victories; among his compatriots he initiated squabbles and infighting that nearly got him killed; and when Lee surrendered Forrest eventually stopped.
And, uh, I guess the statue fits.
Lee was noteworthy not just for accepting surrender, but that he waged war with an interest in protecting 'enemy' civilians, not just in not killing them, but ordering (albeit with imperfect compliance) against the pillage and looting that had been common in that era. After the war ended, he returned to facing disagreement by fully above-board political means within the constraints of the surrender he gave. These behaviors were not only uncommon among Confederates, but not universal in the Union: Sherman and Sheridan are best-known for destroying civil infrastructure and private homes as a military tactic, but even post-war you have people like Burbridge who liked collective punishment and weren't particularly choosy about making sure 'fellow guerillas' actually were guilty.
There's certainly still warts, here -- Lee never countermanded the Confederate policies against 'traitors', regardless of race, which included kidnappings and simple murder; his personal philosophical opposition to slavery often fell second to his own economic and social interests; he was still the sort of racist common to his time. And it's definitely still a tragedy, where the man could have made better decisions earlier, or persuaded his commanders of better ways had he the skill to share the certainty he already held, and didn't. I'm a bigger fan of Longstreet, for example, and he gets far too short a shift in both the mainstream and southern-friendly versions.
((The extent Lost Causers defend Forrest or only mention him by his limited post-civil war racial reconciliation efforts is... usually one of the stronger examples against that school; I have no idea where Dunning proper falls on the spectrum for him.))
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