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 -
The mirror image of this article, alleging insane beliefs by key liberal figure, could easily be written by a social conservative. I am not one, but it's quite easy for me to imagine a version of this which swaps out Zelensky's approval rating for e.g. beliefs on trans people, which many social conservatives would regard as "incapable of separating truth [that men are men and women are women] from fiction". I don't, so I will let someone else write the actual mirror image article if they want to. Regardless, at a minimum I think most would agree that regardless of right or wrong, beliefs about trans people are more politically profound and important than incorrectly claiming low approval ratings for a specific figure. This is the entire problem with Hanania's current routine. From the perspective of conservatism, there's plenty of low human capital liberalism, they just have the added benefit of sometimes getting to smuggle it through academia.
Haniana has this schtick that liberals misguided but conservatives are stupid. Hence this article while ignoring or obfuscating the argument to the contrary. I think his thesis is just wrong.
Yup.
He's got a microniche where he sides with conservatives/righties 95% of the time, but makes a huge deal out of the points on which he disagrees, and implies or outright says that they only disagree with him because they're hopelessly stupid and misguided, and thus he is appalled by 'his own side's' ignorance that he absolute must spend most of his time calling them out.
Lets him get more attention by pissing off the people he nominally sides with, but he also deflects or ignores any direct criticism.
I talked about it a bit:
If anything, he's taking advantage of the fact that the majority of any ideology's adherents are pretty stupid, so its trivial to nutpick your way to prominence.. Well not 'prominence' but something.
This old post of his that claims Walz is clearly better liked and more likeable than Vance looks ESPECIALLY misguided, in retrospect.
Basically, he does micro-motte-and-bailey so he is never really caught in an out-and-out false or fallacious position.
If you are only seeing white identity politics, then that is what you are looking for.
The right wing personalities worth following are rarely universal, because most people aren't infinite polyglots. And most issues aren't appropriate for all styles of people. Matt Walsh is basically a comedian. He is best followed when discussing DEI and Transgender issues, because the appropriate level of seriousness the left wing positions on those topics deserve is mockery and scorn. Matt Walsh barely talks about climate change (except to mock someone like Greta Thunburg) because its not an appropriate issue for his style, and he luckily knows it.
Someone like Bjorn Lundberg is more appropriate for talking about climate change because, while the left wing talking points around the issue are also absurd, it is a serious issue where much more nuance is actually appropriate. If you are looking for a one size fits all solution to understanding the right, you probably will not find one that satisfies you. But if you think there is one on the left I would like to know who you think that is. I would expect I would find several positions that quickly fall apart. I mean, just look at the pathetic performance of Sam Seder on that "stacked" show (I think that is the name) that is now going viral.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link