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 -
Last week, in the context of the Ukraine war, we talked about conscription.
We also talked about the possibility of European countries like France or the UK sending "boots on the ground and planes in the air", to Ukraine to help secure a peace deal.
And finally, as usual, we talked about migration and demographics in Europe.
Here's an interesting tweet at the intersection of all three of these topics:
I have to agree. And I never thought about the issue that way. Since the Napoleonic era, European countries have relied on nationalism to mobilize huge armies. Even if the state was totalitarian, as in Russia, there was still national identity to motivate the troops.
A two tier society, as currently practiced in much of Europe, is fundamentally hostile to the young white men living inside it. Society may be able to tolerate injustice in taxes, housing, and criminal law, but will they tolerate their sons being sent to die on a godforsaken battlefield in the Ukraine, while migrants continue to loiter on street corners and shopping centers? I think this is a bridge too far, even for Europe.
The army of the UK has about 70,000 trained members and 30,000 reservists. Of these, it's questionable how many could be deployed. 30,000 maybe? This is a pretty small number in the context of the Ukraine war, less than 10% of the Ukrainian or Russian forces.
Honestly, I don't think it will ever come to conscription, for the simple reason that it can't. The state would lose all legitimacy. But, for British citizens, I think it's fair to ask. Under what circumstances would you risk your life for your country? Would you die to defend this UK like your great-grandfathers died to defend the UK of the early 20th century?
The point is that in any real conflict they'll have to draft people, and they won't be drafting the illegal migrants, only citizens.
It's one thing to pay taxes so that migrants can get free public housing. It's quite another if your son is conscripted and comes back in a body bag.
I mean, the response to their children actually being killed by migrants is "I wish that my son was killed by a 60-year-old white man." The body bags are already quite literal and it doesn't even make them pause. The UK could be openly talking about using the war to eliminate the remaining population of young white men to prevent "incel terrorism," and do you think the public would bat an eye?
I guarantee every German politician right now is thinking "wow, Ukraine fed every single one of their right wing nationalist young men feet-first into a meat grinder, and nobody complained. I bet we could get rid of all the AfD supporters too! Shipping a problem population out east to be exterminated is genius, nobody would ever call us Nazis again!"
That's an edgy take. Where do you get that quote from? I have only seen similar sentiments about third-party victims of terrorism, and it's not like the other side is not likewise full of anticipation for immigrant perpetrators whenever an attack happens (e.g. in the context of the most recent car terrorist case in Germany, which actually did turn out to be a middle-aged native). It's unsurprising that people don't actually care for the lives of random countrymen nearly as much as they care for political ammo.
Source of the quote
Ah, so it was in the context of an accident. I think that sentiment is a lot more defensible than if we were talking about terrorism and other premeditated crime (as it sounded like from the context) - there doesn't seem to be any particular reason to assume that immigrants would cause fatal car accidents at a higher rate.
Yeah could be (and that dad is a cuck). If immigrants don’t obey safety laws at the same rate, can’t read signage, or come from a culture that is just bad at driving, then they easily could increase the odds of fatal accidents.
Notably Springfield residents were noting these issues prior to the incident.
If your kid got run over by a young man (who have the highest odds of causing fatal accidents) and this was picked up by misandrist feminists, who would proceed to milk the hell out of it to fuel a campaign to raise the minimum driving age for men to 25, would periodically contact you to appear on their campaign trail, and called you a "cuck" if it turned out you were uninterested in their agenda, can you not imagine wishing that your kid had been run over by an old woman instead? Does that make you a "cuck"?
(On that matter, we don't even need to use driving as an example. Men commit the vast majority of violent crime. Are relatives of victims who are not on board with feminism cucks?)
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