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 -
I understand now.
Assumption: non-whites lack agency.
When the Nizam of Hyderabad allies with the British for mutual advantage, this is outsiders enlisting locals since Indians lack agency.
When white American Democrats enlist Mexican immigrants to ally with them for mutual advantage, this is locals enlisting outsiders since Mexicans lack agency.
I don't know what you mean by "taking over". In terms of control over daily life that is demanded, certainly American Democrats and their Mexican allies want far more control over my life than the British ever did. All the British wanted was for my local ruler to send them some tax money, and maybe they'd build roads and schools.
Nope. Please read more carefully.
Yes, you do. You said so yourself: "So basically, the theory is that an alliance between colonialists and domestic factions will result in political domination."
And American Republicans and their allies also want more control over your life, just different aspects. They want to say who you can marry, or who you can sleep with, or whether you can have an abortion, etc, etc. The only group who want less control in principle are libertarians, but then they are also pro-immigration.
tl;dr; you refuse to provide a clear principle by which I can determine whether it's locals enlisting outsiders or outsiders enlisting locals. This makes me question your good faith.
If colonialism is political domination at a level as low as that of the Nizam of Hyderabad or British Bengal, then Democrats and their Mexican allies are far past that point. I note you again refuse to state a clear principle. Odd.
I do agree that American Republicans want more control over my life than the British did, they are irrelevant to this conversation since they don't plan to make it happen by bringing in foreigners to help them.
You are also grossly misrepresenting their positions.
No Republican has ever proposed a law saying I can't declare a man to be my husband, put him in my will and make him my medical proxy. They just said he can't get my social security benefits when I die.
This is not a mainstream Republican position and has not been for many years.
This last bit is true. The British also wanted control over whether I could burn a widow or keep slaves.
Well, if you claim that you can't determine whether it's locals enlisting outsiders or outsiders enlisting locals, then I question your good faith, so we are even.
I literally gave a principle a few comments up that lets me determine whether it's locals enlisting outsiders. I can't think of any cases where that principle fails to reproduce leftist views, though I can think of one edge case (and a fix, simply using the term "adjacent" as modern leftists do).
https://www.themotte.org/post/221/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/40194?context=8#context
Why do you feel the need to misrepresent what I said?
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