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 -
Rhodesia is an interesting case in that it is a 60 year old mirror of modern day progressivism. White rule is unacceptable, for equality's sake we will support Mr. Mugabe. We all know how it turned out, but that hasn't stopped the same thing from happening 30 years later in South Africa.
My question is, who at the time was the major force against Rhodesia? Was it the UK and/or Harold Wilson, was it the US and/or Lyndon Johnson? Was it instead a political party? Were these governments happy with the end result, or did they ever say that they made a mistake with Rhodesia? I would guess not, given that they continue to do the same things. Anyone have any extra insight on the who and the why for the putting down the most effective African regimes, which just happened to be white?
I don't think there's any reliable way other than repression for a minority racial group to rule over a majority in the long run.
We can argue over the manner in which white rule in various countries was wound down/overturned/revolted against, and whether the short and medium term consequences were worth it, but on a long time scale, there's just no good way for Europe to rule Africa without repression, and no good reason why they should try.
Self determination means self determination even if the economic and social metrics important to westerners fall rather than rise.
Is there any reliable way other than repression for any minority to rule over a majority in the long run?
Well, yes. I think most if not all countries are ruled by a small minority of upper-crust aristocrats/bureaucrats/generals/rich dudes. Many are repressive to some degree, but not all.
Well then I'm confused by either what "repression" means or "long term" means. Which countries? Because there have been racial minorities in various parts of north africa and asia which have lasted many decades (some even centuries). I'm struggling to figure out a way to differentiate between these examples and yours. To me, your "racial" condition either isn't necessary or we're really splitting hairs about our perception of what "repression" means.
State your thesis and stop playing dumb.
prodding your "thesis" isn't playing dumb (but I already did state mine anyway)
you conditioned the statement on "racial," I don't think it's necessary and already gave examples where racial minorities ruled "without repression" for the "long term"
long term every single society trends towards repression to stave off collapse/regime change because power is necessarily held by a minority
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