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 -
Anti-Semitism: It's not rocket science
The familial relationship takes certain actions of the table and requires others, even when it's bad. You may at times despise a member of your family, think their ideas or values are terrible, have had awful experiences with them... but a bridge remains despite the gaps. You probably wouldn't want him imprisoned, hanged or shot, even under pretty hostile circumstances. On a more general note, there may be countless family members who are not awful people but are simply less capable than you. If they weren't family members, you might have little to do with them and might rarely even consider them in your plans. But because they are, you do. Ethnies are partly socially constructed, but largely racially constrained families, and they contained a weakened form of the same instinct of moral obligation towards the members of the ethny. Elites from the same ethny may see their peasants as retrograde, but they don't normally arrive at the belief that these should be mercilessly crushed, or that public policy should show no concern whatsoever for their wellbeing.
Now take an ethny with a dramatically higher average IQ (10 -15 points) than the members of the society they live in. You have at once, a guaranteed factory of new revolutionary ideas; and no instinctive limiting concern for the vast majority of people who will be affected by those ideas. Now sometimes ethnies merge and form new identities. Most British, Germans, Irish and even Italian Americans eventually came to see themselves as Americans first. But the gaps between your average German and Italian are not remotely similar to the gap between your average Jew and non-Jew. This is without mentioning the massive religious elephant in the room, or the thousands of years of hostility it involved. No one wants to merge with a family that has a comparatively large percentage of loosers to the one they came from. So the Jewish ethny remains separate, and as such it's members pursue their ideological goals without any concern for the damage these impose on the host society. Naturally, eventually people get tired of this and respond with anti-Jewish measures.
Note that this theory of Jewish gentile relations requires no belief in a unique Jewish malevolence in order to arrive at the conclusion that the relationship between Jews and non-Jews will always naturally develop into hostility.
Only if we keep playing the identity politics game. Erroneously ascribing group traits to individuals, or conflating group criticism with bigotry, is the poison pill which melts brains. For example, its possible to criticize aspects of 'black culture' (population level) without impugning individuals. I'm not claiming people will interpret such criticism charitably, but that's because they swallowed the poison pill. It's possible to notice that the Jews are successful without spite for members of that group. It might be expedient to simply join a different tribe (American, the middle class, Democrats, Republicans, Unitarians, (who, coincidentally, may have the highest IQ's)). But this is only because people keep playing identity politics.
Anglos stopped playing identity politics and in exchange got pushed out of virtually every powerful position in their own country, which now demonizes them and their accomplishments. Dropping identity politics doesn't lead to a multicultural utopia, it just makes you lose to groups that didn't do that.
Come now. The halls of power in this nation are overflowing with Anglos. At least "Anglos" in the American sense where they're probably part Irish and German and French and English. But they're part Anglo and live in American Anglo culture. And they are largely in charge.
I don't think they are though. Biden's cabinet has no white protestants (unless he appointed someone recently I'm forgetting). The Supreme Court has one. I'm sure they have some state level representation and congress members, but the founding ethnicity of the US has very little influence. That's what happens when you stop fighting for your place.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
While I can empathize with discontent caused by anti-Anglo identity politics, the claim that they have been pushed out every powerful position is so factually incorrect it borders on fantasy. Wealth, political power, judicial power, institutional power, and business power is overwhelmingly and disproportionately in the hands of Anglos. This is neither inherently good nor bad, but it can take thick skin to understand. I fail to see anything wrong with aspiring to achieve the highest ideals of the declaration of independence and US constitution.
You think that political and judicial power are overwhelmingly in the hands of Anglos? IIRC Gorsuch is the only WASP on the Supreme Court. Biden isn't an Anglo, Kamala isn't Anglo, the Cabinet is mostly Jewish or Catholic. I'm sure there are plenty in congress but McConnel's not and Schumer's not. I don't know what "overwhelmingly dominant" would look like but it's not that.
Are you intepreting Anglo to specifically mean Anglo Saxon Protestants, so Anglo Saxon Catholics don't count? Let alone the other northern Europeans usually included?
You probably need to specify that as modern usage would generally include any non Hispanic white. Let alone exclude Anglo-Saxon Catholics.
"A white person in the U.S. who is not from a Latin American country: The students are Anglos, Latinos, and Native Americans." from Cambridge English dictionary.
Anglo Saxon Catholics would count I guess but how many of those are there? Anglos are people of English descent, otherwise I would just say white people.
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
Under your definition, people have been “playing identity politics” for thousands of years. Why would they stop now?
People can stop out of self interest. The strength and nature of identities can have varying utility. For example, it isn't optimal to violently persecute the Quakers because they're a different tribe, or hold back the Irish because they're more recent immigrants than, say, the English. Being a Yankee vs Red Socks fan isn't likely to produce huge negative externalities for the individual or society, whereas being a Hindu or white nationalist would. If the irrationality of identity politics can't be eliminated because it is innate to some extent, we can chose more optimal levels of identification and tribal delineation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's the million dollar question. It don't think it will be easy, fast, and I don't claim that it's necessarily possible. Tribalism is almost certainly a useful evolved trait. Nevertheless, the long view of history makes me optimistic that slow incrementalism can get us to form tribes/tribal identities which lower net human suffering compared to the status quo. Within the US, The Know Nothing party would seem absurd today. So would a war of Quakers vs Catholics, or whatever. Skin color, ethnicity, and religious affiliation are the lowest hanging fruit. The fact that Thomas Sowell and Glenn Lowry are black is the least interesting thing about them, and reveals almost no useful information about their essence.
The modern west is a hajnal shredder and talking about the exact selection pressures involved is interesting, but suffice to say for now that we are not hurtling towards lowering net human suffering through more intelligent tribalism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link