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 -
This started as a reply to @SecureSignals @RandomRanger and others but I didn't want to leave it buried at the bottom of a 20 comment long chain as I feel like it warrants examination on it's own.
I posit that the biggest obstacle to the online dissident/woke/identitarian right gaining influence and a wider audience in the US is not that it is rife with grifters, feds, and cosplayers. (Though it is) It's biggest obstacle is that it doesn't do enough to differentiate itself from the online woke/identitarian left in the eyes of people who are not members of the priestly caste (IE Journalists, Academics, etc...). While I acknowledge that the identitarian right has managed to make inroads within the priestly caste (See Yarvin's recent interview in the NYT), it seems to me that the influence of priestly caste has been waning overall (See the election of Donald Trump).
I get the impression that a lot of commentors here don't grasp just how unpopular identity politics is in "normie" spaces. In fact, I would say that to call it "unpopular" may be grossly under selling it. Leftists often lament the weakness/lack of class consciousness in the US, that the poor, more often than not, do not see themselves as "exploited" as much as they see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed". However I believe that this is a feature rather than a bug if one wants to live in a society with high trust and social mobility, and one of the things that distinguishes the US from other nations.
If the identitarian right and the wider priestly caste are going to hold on to Identity Politics as an organizing principal/value they are going to have to have to confront the fact that the perception of Identity Politics in the popular zeitgeist is that of an ideology for losers. An ideology for people too stupid, degenerate, or incompetent to survive in an honest meritocracy. An ideology for people who could not and therefore "Didn't Earn It". They will also have to overcome the perceived association of Identity Politics with Socialism, Marx, and other foreign (distinctly Un-American) influences. Specifically, those of the Indian sub-continent (IE the worst place on earth) and Europe (IE that socialist shithole our ancestors fled across the ocean to escape, and that we as Americans have expended untold millions in blood and treasure trying to protect from its own worst impulses).
Finally, there is the question of value added. Is the priestly caste even relevant these days? Are the jobs that the priestly caste performs mostly fake? Could we do away with them entirely? If so, is trying to align with them a smart move?
Imagine a sincere white supremacist, a walking talking Hollywood cliche with a shaved head, half a dozen kids, a wife he beats, and the 14 words tattooed on his back. How would you go about convincing him that he would be doing more to secure a future for his children (and his genes) by urging his son to associate with gay Catholics and non-binary/MTF cat-girls, than he would by letting his son date that thicc Latina from down the street?
I contend that these are the sort of issues that both the woke left and the identitarian right are going to have to grapple with if they don't want "Trumpism" to run the table on them, as much of the ground level opposition to wokism as it exists today is in reality opposition to identify politics as a whole.
The priestly class is unpopular. There's lots of people who believe in identity politics of one variety or another(usually not DR approved). And the DR is priestly class. Normies don't want their kids around LBGTs, they don't want them taking after uberintellectualism, they don't want them to be 'nerds'. They want their sons to be football stars that get good jobs in town and get married to make grandbabies.
Normies are a lot less bothered about LGB than you imply by lumping it in together with T.
The case against homosexuality (both in its Abrahamic and secular versions) is based on the same logic as the case against post-sexual revolution liberated straight sex, and normies find that logic unpersuasive. Empirically, when the LGBs were offered normalisation on the same basis as the sluts, rakes, unrepentant adulterers, frivorcers etc. they took it, and aren't doing anyone any more harm than the straights did when they took up ubiquitous non-procreative sex. Despite gay marriage, straight marriage is in a better state than it has been in since the introduction of no-fault divorce. This is happening within the plain sight of normies and their families, so they know.
You can make a secular socially conservative case against sexual liberation for gays and straights (empirically, it crashed the birthrate and launched a bastard epidemic). You can (and should, if you take the Bible seriously) make a conservative Christian case against it. But making either of those cases makes you like like a wierdo - it is the epitome of normie-unfriendly conservatism. Given what we can see in front of our noses, arguing for sexual restraint for gays only just makes you look like a self-hating closet case seeking moral support. (It is also intellectually incoherent, but normies don't care about that.)
LGB (but not T) is the one early-C21 woke issue where normie public opinion has swung behind the woke position.
T is different, because the difference between men and women matters in the way that maintaining a ban on one particular subset of non-procreative sex doesn't.
I think you're way overestimating the popularity of gay men. Opinions seem to run the gamut from 'they're all closeted pedophiles' to 'it's weird and gross but what adults do amongst themselves is none of my business', with the mode somewhere around 'fetishistic plague rats'.
Your understanding of the distribution of opinions is wildly incorrect. You are taking the long tail of the actual distribution and declaring it the median.
I think to have a good feel on this, you need to disassemble the problem:
My intuition is that normies have a mostly good opinion of gay people, but that part of it is based on them thinking that the average gay guy is more "normal" than what they actually are.
Is your claim he's not an assless chapped degenerate?
Maybe I don't have enough context, but yes? He certainly seems to be hated by the most libertine parts of the LGBT community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan
Lists him looking for anonymous bareback sex with other HIV+ men and self identification as a 'bear'. Seems more degenerate that not though I've no specific evidence for assless chaps.
My suspicion is the degeneracy we see and is reported is the tip of the degeneracy iceberg, the reality is wider and deeper.
Bug chasing will scare the
hoesnormies.He may be a very median 'gay'. The median is still very degenerate.
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