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 is a small question, not a huge discussion topic.
Is there a term for groups or factions hiding behind their name as a shield, as opposed to what their group actually does? As an example, feminists will say that all women should be in favor of feminism, because feminism just means "supporting women's choices" or something benign. But in actuality, feminism really means supporting specific women in specific ways - many women don't like abortion advocacy, sexual liberation, and all of the things that actually goes along with feminism. I used to joke that I am a "goodist", which is in support of things that are good. And when people donate to goodism, we'd use it to fund very specific libertarian or anti feminist causes, or something.
I remember thinking about this concept back in my anti-sjw heyday of 2014 a lot, but I can't remember if there is a term for it. This is related to, but not entirely described by "motte and bailey", such that I think it should have it's own name, if it doesn't.
This is coming up for me now, because I'm seeing people post things like a meme that says "do you realize how insane it is to publicly announce that you don't want diversity, equity, and inclusion?" in response to Trump
That term is "politics". (Of course, it's better to not have a name at all; that's why it took so long to label the current supremacist movements as "woke".)
Remember: it's not a supremacy movement if you can convince everyone it's the natural order of things- where given X, not-Xes are naturally subhuman and thus subjugation is a blessing for both them and everyone else.
A large contingency of Americans in the 19th century really did believe that slavery was a global maximum, just like how 21st century Americans really do think men are lesser than women and everyone's better off if we treat them accordingly.
Those same 21st century Americans will then look back at the 19th century ones and go "haha how stupid; naturally they were all hateful and just wanted to say the Swear Words [and think that's the height of racism]- we're different, because
we tell ourselvesit's done out of love, not hate".Feminists follow this pattern. They're gynosupremacists. Few are capable of realizing (it's an instinct), fewer still are capable of doing anything about it, fewer still are able to survive the subsequent debanking. If the US doesn't win WW2, Jim Crow remains the law of the land- it is the economic boom that enables people to survive being kicked out of "reputable establishments" because the demand for their work is so high that society literally cannot stop them. The supremacists of the time stopped being powerful enough to suppress anti-supremacist activity; white supremacy fell apart, heterosupremacy fell apart (usually, but inaccurately, referred to as the sexual revolution). Now everyone's poorer- the music has stopped, so to speak- and whichever group was on top at the time naturally became the new supremacy movement. Which is why, today, wealth transfers from young to old and men to women.
Do you realize how insane it is to publicly announce that whites and blacks should share the same water fountains in a milieu where them sharing the fountains would Explode Polite Society? Yeah, neither do the LARPers.
No they're not. Feminists are a class interest movement for a certain kind of person- typified by hyperurbanization, very high education levels, extremely late marriage, high status career, etc. This person is mostly female.
Feminists mostly don't care very much about advocating on behalf of, say, women enlisted, or stay at home moms. Portraying mainstream today feminism as being pro-the broader set of women is a mistake, to the point that it's more concerned with the interests of its class peer males than it is with those of women who don't fit the mold it envisions.
Indeed. They're the same picture, and that's what makes it supremacy: it's not enough that their group succeeds, everyone else must fail.
Why would you expect a white supremacist to advocate on behalf of a race traitor? Being enlisted or a stay at home mom implies you've rejected supremacy- it's as disgusting as miscegenation is to a white supremacist, for the same reasons it's disgusting to them. Which is why the only outreach gynosupremacists do to this group is mostly just encouraging them to be more gynosupremacist (hence the occasional thinkpieces about "cheating is Good, Actually").
More options
Context Copy link
Perhaps feminists will advocate more for interests that better correlate with those of blue-tribe women, but they'll still advocate more for women as a whole than men, and especially for women as a whole against men—military women against military men, stay-at-home mothers against their breadwinner husbands. And, of course, there are the usual Who? Whom? considerations.
A white stay-at-home mother who made a childless female yuppie five minutes late to work on Monday because she held up the line at Starbucks a bit while ordering for her four kids is an infuriating breeder who needs to get on birth control ASAP. The same stay-at-home mother who made a childless male yuppie five minutes late to work on Tuesday ordering at McDonalds for her kids is an overworked, underappreciated hero performing the emotional and physical labor of feeding her family. He should have some Empathy and should had left for work fifteen minutes earlier if he didn't want to be late.
The same stay-at-home mother is a poor victim of her toxic, entitled, chauvinistic husband who treats her like a broodmare and handmaid, saddling her with four kids and neglecting to split household chores 50/50. She is a racist Karen for calling the police on a group of black teens or "teens" for jumping her gated community's fence to have a pool party.
Feminists aren't advocating for blue tribe women, they're advocating for elite women- while the blue tribe probably has higher incomes than the red tribe, I doubt the difference comes out that big in purchasing power, and the median blue triber is still pretty far from being elite. I have read feminist thinkpieces reminiscing on all-girls elk hunting trips at luxury hunting lodges with kill fees and professional guides; this is an elite activity, but not a blue coded one. Or feminist focusing on female fighter pilots, but not the woman sergeant maintaining that jet(or woman air traffic controllers, either).
Enlisted women have many challenges facing them, and feminists ignore them all to focus on largely invented problems for elite classes. They don't even have to be problems for elite class women, as long as they can be spun to have a gender valence.
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