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 -
If you read progressive histories, there is a lot of cherry-picking/nut-picking of the dumbest or vilest things conservatives said, and making that the representative of the whole argument. And as /u/sodiummuffin points out, some of that nut-picking is just straight up fabricated.
Meanwhile sometimes you read the best of the old racists and what they say is remarkably sophisticated, nuanced and time proven its accuracy. For instance, Francis Galton was down on blacks ever achieving a high level of development, but pointed out that the Chinese were actually smart and industrious but held back by bad government/environment. This analysis was remarkable predictive.
The other thing that happens is that we often underestimate how old political correctness is. Even in the 1920 and 1930s a certain set of elite liberals would exaggerate the achievements of women and blacks, and it was becoming politically incorrect in elite circles to talk about blacks being less smart. In such a climate, it is often easier to make an argument of the stor, "Integration would be bad for black people" than "integration would be bad because it hurts the interest of white people." Today this is the trope of "Democrats are the real racists" and conservatives making arguments along the line of "affirmative action is bad because it is bad for black people because it creates mismatch." Or Bush's argument that blacks were hurt by "the soft bigotry of low expectations." So moderate conservatives make a bad argument out of political correctness, and then that argument ends up proved wrong, thus discrediting the conservative, thus giving the liberals another chance with the ball.
Also, conservatives have been the populist party for the past 90+ years, they don't have institutions that do a good job at filtering for the truth, and so often the most famous conservative spokespeople and Uncle Roy say a lot of dumb things, even if they are more directionally correct than the liberals.
The point of the antiversity, thus, is to have a much, much more truthful version of rightism than what Uncle Roy can produce. The point is to create an actual credible, good alternative to the progressive institutions so we don't have to rely on Joe Rogan and right-wing twitter. So the Antiversity is supposed to be much, much better than Uncle Roy, and Uncle Roy, despite is flaws, is closer to the truth than modern progressives.
?? Conservatives in the thirties may have been many other things, but 'populist' is a strange description.
Father Coughlin, Charles Lindbergh America First, Nazi's filling Madison Garden.... I should have just said "rightists" instead of "conservatives". It's a tricky period because an older right (the Coolidge right) was being defeated and destroyed and new forms of rightism were splintering from the New Deal and trying to coalesce.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link