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 -
Two leftist policies where I can understand the power dynamics but not the attitude: open borders for military-aged third-world men, relaxed (or none at all) prosecution on criminals, especially military-aged minorities who commit brazen acts of murder/assault/robbery.
As is always the case, these policies exist because a lot of parties benefit. Open borders is supported by capital, homeowners (keeps housing prices pumping), and leftists who gain the patronage of the newcomers. Criminals also help various parties. They drive out right-wingers (i.e. families). They use a huge amount of services that employ leftists. Like immigrants they become patrons to the left, to some degree.
I can see why these things are allowed to continue, but the above analysis is missing the source of intense passion that these issues receive. I don't think Amazon ever pushed for open borders, they just didn't complain end enjoyed the cheap labour. Homeowners don't go to open borders rallies because they want another point of appreciation. Chesa Boudin wants prisoners released because it's strategic. On these two issues specifically, there is only one source of intense passion: single, college-educated women.
This is confusing. Women are more risk-averse and place a higher value on safety, but at the same time they are advocating for violent criminals and random foreigners. There is also a strong element of hatred towards their own countrymen present in this, which makes sense given the policy but does not make sense given that they're ladies. It's similar to the pit bull owner thing. What's up with this? I've seen the meme around pseudopregnancy before and it fits OK, but it's not clear why criminals and foreigners would be the subject of this affection over anything else.
Maybe if a women feel rejected by or reject their own tribe themselves, they attempt to undermine it in the hopes of getting conquered by a different tribe? That seems overly complicated though, the answer to this should feel simple because it's emotional. Help me out here.
Why are you using the term "military-aged"? For whose military? If I look up the USA, the age range for conscription is 17-45. Are we to be concerned about all these 45 year old men?
Ah, but wait: apparently there is a thing called the Selective Service System for men - included illegal immigrants - in the age range 18-25.
So let us say you mean "men aged 18-25". Why then not say "young men", "young adults" or a similar term?
I think there is meant to be an effect here with word choice: "military aged" has the connotations of the military. Soldiers. Active fighting men. Violence.
Hence, "military-aged third world men/military-aged minorities" is meant to evoke immediately, bypassing the brain and getting the limbic system riled-up, the image of "violence-prone, aggressive, fit and capable of fighting and hurting you" non-white men who are involved, or likely to be involved, in crime and violence. Not alone will they take er jerbs, they will take er wimmin too! And beat you up, then laugh and call you a cuck as they leave you bleeding on the ground and steal your car to drive off in with your kidnapped daughter. Or even worse, not kidnapped, she goes with him voluntarily. As does your wife, because they both want bad-boy young alpha cock.
Can you be a little less obvious about trying to put up a scare? Maybe this age cohort of men are something to be worried about maybe they are involved in crime and fraudulent use of resources, but making it sound like "wink wink, they are actually an army you know or at least a militia" is not the way to discuss the topic of immigration (I do think the US should be cracking down hard on it, but "the brown men army is coming for our wimminfolks!" is not a good angle).
If we look at the Ukrainian war (both sides), in practice current "military age" seems to be somewhere around 18-60, though I wouldn't be surprised if a number of cases younger or older than that could also be found from the armies of both sides.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link