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 -
Im not talking about "principles", per se. "Burn it all down so that my ideology can inevitably emerge from the ashes" is an asymmetric method as far as Im concerned (though usually not a very good one). Content-agnostic methods are those that, definitionally, everyone can use. If youre ideology is in any way related to how society works, you should have more options available to you.
Another way of looking at it: Yes, christian nationalism is in a very weak position. That means if you only use methods that everyone can use, you should expect to get crushed, since theres a winner-takes-all effect to this, and youre not really any better at it. Why do you think you can win?
I think if your tactics dont work, its generally in your interest to have a think about why.
Let me talk about Gramsci for a moment.
Gramsci came to the (right) conclusion that Italy was not ready for socialism. Socialism in Italy was about as popular as Christian Nationalism is now. Any creation of a socialist regime in Italy would inevitably have to come top-down from a Leninist vanguard party. He was intellectually honest and realized that taking power for the people against the people's wishes was so contradictory as to be unjustifiable.
For similar reasons, America is not amiable to being a Christian nationalist homeland. But nevertheless, he believed it was possible: because he bought into, at some level, Marxist dialectical materialism. Christian nationalists believe they will succeed because God is on their side. You may not accept these reasons as being valid, but they are very real and compelling reasons to them.
By definition, they seek to transform and revolutionize society, but from such a marginal position, all they can do is encourage the development of a civil society that wants to be socialism/christian, etc. The strategy is sound. The reason that it's not done by everyone is that it's hard and requires patience. Only people on the margins of society without any other recourse to more potent levers would try this because success isn't certain in the least.
You're asking for novel and unique tactics from fringe ideologies: but the truth is that there really isn't any. Hitler sums it up in Mein Kampf better than anyone else, in my opinion: parasitizing off an existing movement and repurposing its infrastructure for your own ends. Street violence as self promotion: shows of strength in enemy strongholds. Attract the convincible and use them as leverage to force the establishment to make concessions. Then, when the time is right, seize power. This is virtually identical to Leninist vanguardism in every respect. Culture war is just to shape the intellectual landscape to prime the masses to accept the process of overthrow of bourgoise democracy as natural and necessary.
I suppose if you think that gods commands are entirely unrelated to how he chose to create the world, and will win out purely through some kind of direct intervention (but still you do have to fight with maximum effectiveness for it to happen, any moral scruples and you lose), it would lead to this strategy. But I dont think this specific version just is christian belief, and that its appealing to some ideologues precisely because theyve internalised not believing in a natural order.
You dont think the establishment tries to maintain a civil society that wants them?
Im not saying those tactics cant work - someone is always gonna win. And a brief look at his neighbors and historical context suggests it wasnt just random either. There are propably some ideosyncratic positions of the Nazi party that that won only with them, because Hitler was a great speaker, but the general direction seems to derive from broader factors.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link