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 would say this has been broadly true, so far. However, with the last 10 years of naked anti-white racism on display at all levels of society, noticing is off the charts. It's going to be experiments like these that show if your thinking, which has been true my entire life at least, still holds true. Or if, just maybe, enough "good whites" have been burned enough to take a gamble on racial solidarity, and bring their prosocial traits with them.
Even if your claims of anti-white racism were true (the FAA hiring scandal is clearly an instance, and affirmative action can reasonably be described as both anti-Asian and anti-White, but that does not clear the "all levels of society" bar for me), I do not see how segregation would be the natural consequence.
The Black's response to facing racial discrimination was the civil rights movement, which was way more effective than any attempt to build a black-only community in the US or elsewhere would have been.
Even if you could convince the PMC that they were getting a Bad Deal wrt race in the coastal cities and that they should build their own White-only coastal cities in the middle of Arkansas
with blackjack and hookers, I am not holding my breath for these cities to decide national elections. I would rather embark on a campaign of meritocracy and how racial discrimination is not cool even if it targets Whites or Asians.At the moment, most people openly advocating for racial segregation are Neo-Nazis. I think I speak for the vast majority of Whites, HBD-pilled or otherwise, when I say I would much rather have a randomly selected Black person as a neighbor than a Neo-Nazi for purely selfish Bayesian reasons.
But this goes to the core of it. What if normal whites have noticed enough that they decide "You know what, I'm going to act like every other race treats me." What if they preferentially hire whites the same way Indians favor Indians, or Jews favor Jews? What if they aggressively subsidize and import white residents the same way the federal government bombs small Midwestern towns with Haitians or Somalians? What if they start giving out contracts to white owned businesses the same way the federal government gives contracts only to black or minority owned businesses? What if they forgive debt for white's the same way the federal government keeps finding way to forgive debts exclusively for blacks? What if they give preferential medical treatments to whites the same way preferential treatments were given to blacks?
None of this requires deep supremacist neo-nazi beliefs. Just noticing and then going tit-for-tat. Realizing if you don't, you have no future.
Take tariffs. Tit-for-tat is fine, because you can make it explicit that your tariffs are retaliatory.
Contrast with terrorism. If members from group A blow up random members from group B, then there are generally responses which are much more efficient to stop these incidents than members from group B starting to blow up random members from group A (unless you are in Somalia or something -- and even then targeting the murderers would likely be strictly preferable). In fact, retaliation would be likely to increase the rate of incidents.
If Whites start to (more) openly discriminate against non-Whites, then of course the wokes will whine how unfair and racist that is and how the government should put its hands on the scales even more.
Now, if a Republican state was saying "as long as the federal government is openly preferring minority-owned businesses, we will openly prefer any businesses which do not qualify for preferential treatment from the feds", that would be a limited tit-for-tat, like retaliatory tariffs. Sure, the wokes would also whine how incredibly racist that is, but a smarter member of the public would recognize that the goal was to have a level playing field, not to establish the fourth Reich.
Rumors of white genocide have been exaggerated, European-origin DNA will be common in the US population for the foreseeable future. For all the efforts to achieve equality of outcomes, the odds of a white person to make it big are still better than for a black person, which is possibly HBD-related. In the contemporary US, Whites might get a -2 racial malus to both sympathy and government handouts, but that does not make White characters unplayable.
Plenty of groups get treated unfairly, and in most cases, making their victimhood a core part of their identity is actively harmful. Women and men, straights and queers, all sorts of ethnicities, can legitimately claim that sometimes, they are treated unfairly. And that sucks and they should push for a better society, but in most cases they should play the game with the cards they have been dealt, rather than embracing their victimhood.
Telling the multi-ethnic society "your game is so rigged against us, we will not play" and going to raise chickens in some rural white-only community, or emigrating to Hungary does not seem an appropriate response to the present level of disadvantage.
I've never felt more seen. Also, wives fucking love chickens, and husbands who can build coops.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean they did right? Even more than that actually. This is something white Americans already did. It's how you ended up where you are now. Do you think trying it again is going to work better? You have affirmative action and white guilt, people trying to make things up to black farmers and the like because this is what happened before and white people decided, actually this makes us feel pretty bad when we look at in comparison to our theoretical national values.
Whites had the nation you are envisaging and even more than that. Then they decided they didn't like it. Black people didn't have the power to change it. White people themselves did.
The things you complain about are already the tat for white peoples tit! (so to speak!), to try and make up for slavery and Jim Crow and so on and so forth. Instigated by white people themselves!
They already did the "What if?" You know how it ended.
This assumes more continuity of people and culture than is advisable.
When appealing to those national values and the ideals of the Founders, modern folk do tend to forget John Adams' ominous line- "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." And so we reap that failure mode.
If the rule brought you to this, of what use was the rule?
Or one of those other pithy lines, like "liberalism is not a suicide pact." A libertarian arguing for open borders is not a result of mental illness. For any other ideology, the root cause is at least mental illness adjacent. By extension, "white guilt" (and many other racial sicknesses) should be in the DSM.
There's a really nasty lesson here; that moral "improvement" has incredibly high costs for a culture. Either a culture has to be fully right and never commit even a single evil act, or go Full Evil and salt the earth behind you; anything in between tends to result in a blood curse.
Sounds like a subcategory of Onlyfans, or an Aella stunt. English is funny.
I mean America is pretty great in my opinion.
Moral improvement should have costs surely? If being moral was easy and cheap then everyone would do it. If you want to be moral you are explicitly making decisions that are worse practically, because if they were better practically you wouldn't have to be moral to choose them. Being moral mean soften looking at the most efficient choice and not making it. You risk your life to dive into the river to save the child and so on and so forth.
The ancestors of America brought the wolf in (as per Jefferson), they could later have chosen to be immoral and kill/deport all the wolves. Or moral and have to contend with what enslaving a race means for race relations and the future when you let them go. They chose the latter. That means their descendants have to deal with that choice, for better or for ill. Being immoral is often better practically. But it isn't what America was founded to aspire to. I don't think that's a nasty lesson in as much as a lesson about reality. Choices have consequences. Being better than you were does not immunize you against previous choices. It's easy to go back and think we should have just killed them all. It probably would be easier. But morality isn't about being easier it's about being better, however you measure that.
"Jefferson wrote that maintaining slavery was like holding “a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.”17 He thought that his cherished federal union, the world’s first democratic experiment, would be destroyed by slavery. To emancipate slaves on American soil, Jefferson thought, would result in a large-scale race war that would be as brutal and deadly as the slave revolt in Haiti in 1791. But he also believed that to keep slaves in bondage, with part of America in favor of abolition and part of America in favor of perpetuating slavery, could only result in a civil war that would destroy the union."
America you will note, managed to not have the union destroyed, not have a full scale race war and has not as yet been destroyed. And part of the reason for that is because efforts were made to make up for slavery. The Civil Rights Act, Affirmative Action and the like were promises to ADOS that they didn't need to resort to a race war to get their place in America. The white guilt you speak of as a mental illness was vital in charting a course that has made great strides.
Is it perfect? Not at all. Racial resentment did not vanish. Black people are still poor compared to whites. But assuming you think genocide is bad, the outcome has to be measured against that. Not against perfection.
It was destroyed, and then put back together by force, going from the original voluntary union to a nation of victors and vanquished. And the mainstream complaint nowadays is the vanquished weren't treated harshly enough, so therefore we should treat their descendants (literal, political, philosophical, or imagined) even worse.
That would not have turned out like Haiti, when whites were willing to take their own side.
You quoted Jefferson. Jefferson also feared "Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites" and "ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made ; and many other circumstances"
He was mostly wrong on the first. It turns out those deep-rooted prejudices of whites could be mostly (if bloodily) extirpated. But dead right on the second. And that may well be sufficient for the consequences he feared: "will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race" I expect not on the extermination part. But the resentments of blacks alone, along with the sympathy for those resentments among one party of whites, will keep those convulsions going indefinitely.
Well that's the question isn't it? From Founding to the Civil Rights movement was near 200 years. It's been about 80 since then. Timescales for nations are measured in centuries. In 120 years will those convulsions still be ongoing or not? Or will American blacks and whites have banded together to fight our AI overlords or an alien invader, or Chinese communism or just all be rich, fat and happy on automated cruise liners in space?
It seems clear to me, having significant contact with black Americans that the level of fear and anger in younger generations is significantly less than in older ones. Even my wife's grandmother on her deathbed recanted her ban on "dating out". And she had lived through Jim Crow in the South before migrating North and believed a white doctor had tried to kill one of her children in the womb.
It's been answered. After the race riots of the '60 and early '70s, we had the racial detente of the 70s and 80s, but then things got worse; we had the Rodney King Riots and a generation later the more-widespread Floyd riots.
Not really, no. Nations rise and fall within that time. For all the US gets shit for "200 years is a long time", such staid European nations as Germany and Italy are only a century and a half old, and aren't even really continuous through that time.
And her granddaughter's (or great-granddaughters) peers not only believe that, they have scientific studies PROVING that white physicians are killing black babies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I haven't seriously tried to leave yet, so I must agree.
Cost, yes. In perpetuity, no. The largest costs should be opportunity costs- taking the moral slow route rather than the immoral fast route. Saving a drowning child should not imply that your great-grandchild is indebted to theirs, even if you also knocked the child into the river.
Obviously the best "time machine" choice is to stop the first European that intended to take slaves from Africa. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
What came before is not what followed after. Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicanism lost to federalism. America emerged from that forge stronger in many ways and weaker in others, but most definitely changed.
America failed to live up to its founding ideals, and tried to repair that by carving away further.
We're using that phrase differently and maybe I'm drawing the boundaries too narrowly to be truly fair. I would like to draw a bright line between people like William Lloyd Garrison and Tema Okun or Robin Diangelo. Or anyone else that has written positively of "critical race theory" rather than damning it to where it belongs: in the Valley of Hinnom next to the most odious theorists of Hitler and Mao and history's other monsters. What I mean by "white guilt" has been nothing but poison in the veins, harming the very people it claims to want to protect and everyone else in the process.
Perhaps I am relying too much on hindsight, and that "racism is good, actually" of modern progressives does have a true and consistent through-line with "maybe black and white people are reasonably equal" of the abolitionists. But I certainly hope not. Surely one should be able to call evil evil, and good good. Abolishing slavery is good. Suggesting that white people shouldn't be vaccinated to
reduce the surplus populationproduce "health equity" is the vilest evil short of war. Somewhere in between is that line I can't quite define but am confident exists.I think many things are bad. Letting perfection be the enemy of good is bad, but I'm not sure that measuring against what society has declared the worst possible thing instead is much improvement in itself.
Genocide is terribly bad, of course. So is slavery.
Tiers of justice, ceding the commons to the lowest common denominator, deciding that racism (or sexism) is good so long as you target it at the right people, restricting the right of association based on certain protected classes but not other categories of those classes, so on and so forth are also bad. Less so. Does that make them reasonable prices to pay for moral improvement? Does that make a functional multicultural society? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?
Maybe, that's the point. It might be once it committed to slavery that America had no good outcomes. Either genocide or hundreds of years of racial animosity and war or affirmative action and critical theory. As you say the best option would likely to have been not enslaved a bunch of people. Once you do that as Jefferson noted, you have no good options.
So it might be that (hopefully not!) the price that must be paid for moral improvement is what you see today forever. Or it might (and hopefully will) decline over time. How long the racial wound of slavery and discrimination takes to heal is an open question. The question is given we can't change the past, is this the best option we have of those available to us? From Founding to the Civil Rights movement was what 200 years give or take? So maybe roughly 200 years is what it will take to heal. Would 200 years of the things you don't like now worth 200 years of what black people had to go through in their 200 years? Or is that too great a moral price to pay?
There is no objective answer to that, really. I'd sway to the idea that yes that would be a reasonable price to pay. But that is also predicated on the fact, I think being a white man in the US is pretty good even with whatever headwinds being faced. So I don't really view it as much of a cost at all. I'd choose to be white over than black in a heartbeat from a flourishing point of view in the US right now and I don't see that changing particularly.
But how much of a cost (if any at all) anyone person is willing to bear for the mistakes of Americans past, is going to be invariably a very personal thing.
Why measure in time, and not lives? Or GDP, as reparation advocates want, with numbers larger than the wealth of the entire world?
Two wrongs do not make a right, so why would four centuries of opposing wrongs make a right? The past cannot be undone. Do the principles matter, or not? If the principles matter, then they shouldn't be violated over and over, no amount of violation fixes what's wrong. We are individuals, "created equal," "endowed with unalienable rights." And saddled with blood-debts and those rights left contingent on our protected class identities.
If the principles don't matter, than such arguments are bullshit and the problem isn't that we failed to live up to them, it's that we pretended they exist at all. But now that's moving away from concerns of moral improvement and into a suggestion of moral anti-realism.
It is, it could certainly be worse, and the social psychosis is a little less fevered than it was 2016-2023. And yet! Black-letter law says discrimination isn't allowed. And yet!
How many Supreme Court cases before Harvard and UNC and Michigan give up being racist? Or the state of Minnesota, apparently. Alas, they have taken the Jacksonian stance on such things.
I like it when laws mean things. I like it when words mean things.
If the only choice is black or white, I too would choose white, even if that means zero chance of being Idris Elba and nonzero chance of being on the meth transformation list. But why limit the choice to those options, if choice is to be imagined? Anyone would choose to be born to a rich family rather than abjectly poor, given the choice. To be born in fair weather and healthy lands than next to an EPA brown site or tornado alley. Beautiful rather than deformed, smart rather than stupid, et cetera.
The point is we don't choose. Isn't the lesson from Rawls' veil that we don't want laws where such differences matter?
Moral luck rules the day. So shall it ever be. Unless we're aiming for Harrison Bergeron communism, we can only do so much to account for moral luck, and the more we account for it the further we are from those principles that supposedly matter to have failed.
The cost I am willing to bear for history has gotten much, much lower since becoming a parent.
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
Sometimes people with severe mental illnesses go off their medication because they feel better and think they no longer need it. They don't like the side effects, etc. Just because the medicine doesn't feel good doesn't mean you don't need it.
Even assuming I agree, that only goes for Blacks. How does it go for Indians, Jews, Asians, Arabs, Mexicans and every other nationality colonizing America and carving it's founding stock out of it?
Yup, but this isn't medication, or mental illness. This is a choice. You may not like the choice, but that doesn't make it mental illness.
If anyone is carving out the founding stock, it is the founding stock themselves. Indians, Mexicans and whatever else can't do anything they are not allowed to do. The vast majority of your political apparatus is white. This isn't colonization or invasion. It's invitation. And it is invitation largely because of the white guilt felt by large numbers of your fellow white Americans. You can't fix that by making them do the same thing they felt the guilt about in the first place. If you think it is a problem (and it legitimately might be!) then you have to resolve it, not repeat the actions that led to it. Unfortunately this is one of the dividing issues your nation has faced since its founding. It was called out at its founding this was going to be a huge problem in fact. The Civil War, Civil Rights movement, wokism is all downstream of the choices your ancestors made.
I don't see a good answer, with the possible exception (and even this is shaky) as you point out as going all in for blacks. Affirmative action for blacks only, reparations for blacks only, attempt to help your fellow white Americans extirpate their guilt by focusing on the main group that was harmed so others don't get pattern matched in. But that guilt is the foundational issue you are going to have to deal with. Letting immigrants in is asymmetric. It takes much less effort to do so, than try and get rid of them afterwards. So you have to find a way to make them stop wanting to. To make them stop feeling guilty about being so privileged and about how that privilege was used against yes primarily black people through American history.
I don't think you can do that, by going back to the same behaviors that got you here in the first place.
Overwhelmingly, every time it's put to a vote, people vote for less immigration. People vote against affirmative action policies. People vote against racial carve outs. Don't pretend the call is coming from inside the house, and whites are inflicting this on themselves. The government is running amok, either because racial spoils are easy to lie about but still deliver votes, or because some unaccountable aspect of it has been captured by racial interest groups. Might be worth looking into that "Critical Race Theory" thing. Whenever it comes up, I always hear it's defenders claim "They aren't teaching that in schools, it's only a legal theory".
Right, but those politicians are white themselves overwhelmingly right? 75% of Congress is white. Its not black people or Asians or whatever making those choices. They don't have the numbers or power. If you want to say elite whites are making different choices than non elite whites want then perhaps you have a point. But its still white people making those choices.
And even there i'll point again to the discrepancy that haunted the Tories, people say they want less immigration, but they also punish any party that oversees an economic downturn.
If you want politicians to really drop immigration you have to show you will vote for them when the economy tanks. And mostly people don't. That was our finding when I worked for the Tories. All our modelling showed that doing what people said they wanted, would lose us votes. Same with Brexit, as soon as the economic winds started to bite, voters turned on the Tories. What lesson does that teach your politicians?
We get the politicians we deserve. People may say they want lower immigration, but they are not prepared to pay the costs that involves. I'll bet dollars to donuts that in 2028, if Trump really has made a dent in numbers of illegal immigrants and the economy has suffered that Republicans lose, even if they did what most people wanted. And politicians learn that lesson.
More people rate the economy as their most important political issue than immigration. Therefore spending billions on immigration enforcement, driving up costs of food, cutting other programs for Americans to pay for it, is a losing proposition. Thats why even Trump was going back and forth on enforcement for illegal farm workers.
Its not that the call is coming from inside the building. Its that there are 300 million calls all saying contradictory things, reduce immigration, make my food cheaper, make American goods, make me able to buy a truck and a TV, and so on and so forth. Trump to his credit, is trying to stick to some of these, but even he admits it will make things worse in the short term.
That means you need to persuade people in 2028 to vote Republican even if, especially if! the economy sucks. If they do, then you are creating a new signal. If they don't then they are telling politicians what their revealed preferences really are.
None of that proves "the call is coming from inside the house", unless you're one of the more advanced racists.
More options
Context Copy link
How ironic that taking this belief to its logical conclusion with the Boriswave will probably be the thing that kills off the party entirely.
Although I'm still pretty skeptical that it was clearheaded pragmatism that made the party govern left and talk right on immigration. David Cameron could have reduced non-EU immigration to literally zero and still have hundreds of thousands of EU workers coming in every year to flood the labour market. Instead he decided that not only did we need Polish plumbers, we also apparently needed inbred Pakistanis and violent Africans. He could have reduced the worst categories of immigration and all that would have happened was a reduced welfare and policing bill. But he didn't, because he found doing so distasteful.
Mike Jones' piece in the Critic is more convincing to me. The (parliamentary) party never wanted or intended to reduce immigration. They are primarily elites who want to impress other elites. They don't actually believe that massive third world immigration is damaging to the country.
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
What examples would it take to clear the bar? Like what categories of behavior or cultural positioning or what have you? Cultural measures?
I'm not saying Coil is correct, I think it's useful to prod at what people would take as evidence.
Good luck! The dream of the 90s is alive
in Portlandat the Motte?More options
Context Copy link
The Civil Rights Movement allowed them to build or expand black-only communities in many major northern metropolitan areas (the South, of course, already had them).
More options
Context Copy link
Indeed, this experiment has been run. Black supremacists are just schizophrenic antisemites and black separatist experiments are gigantic failures that always seem to have justifiable- and usually banal- reasons for getting shut down when the authorities intervene.
If you'd like a separatist enclave in the US, start an insular religious community and make sure the girls wait until 18 before they get married. Society is fine with it that way.
More options
Context Copy link
Just out of curiosity, how many have you met?
Open Neo-nazis is likely going to filter for people with criminal pasts and the like. I'm sure there's plenty of productive people with essentially white supremacist beliefs, but I'd personally prefer not to live next to somebody with a Swastika face tattoo
Well, I guess I also would prefer to not live next to a cartoon caricature of a neo-nazi.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe? There are also "affinity housing" programs at a number of universities that haven't gotten the Bob Jones treatment that I would personally consider "racial segregation," but seem to be supported by leftists.
But I otherwise mostly agree with your conclusions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think what will really swing things is if white people can find plausible alternative justifications for it. If they can convince themselves they aren't being racist they'll go for it. So I anticipate a lot more think pieces about dog whistles in the future.
IMO we've seen a big shift on Holocaust narratives in the last decade partially because the set of vocal Holocaust survivors willing and able to speak out from a position of moral authority has shrunk substantially. I wouldn't be surprised if the narrative of the Civil Rights Era changes in the next decade or two for similar reasons: the youngest people to march with MLK are in what, their late 70s?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link