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 -
Yeah, mine to. I don't understand why you think this is a good argument
How many people are having kids?
We're trying. What's wrong with writing a blog post sometimes?
Anecdotally, a surprising amount, a lot. The majority of my coworkers approaching 30s, myself included.
It’s just funny to see those grand declarations and nothing else. Speaking to the in-group only, reinforcing the feeling of doom within the in-group, exactly the same way the leftists do it. I’m probably much closer to “a normie” nowadays, so the internal rhetoric feels jarring, detached from the reality of my own life to a tremendous degree.
Statistics tell a different story, though.
Funnily enough, I don't see much connection to reality in this criticism. Why is everyone screeching about "far right" parties performing well in Europe? Why is Europe adapting it's laws to enable more online censorship? Why is the UK arresting comedians for tweets? Those are not things that happen when a group is out of touch with the normies.
No, they don't. 86% of women aged 40-44 (as of 2016) had at least one child. Perhaps you meant to ask a different question?
Despite the screeching, none of the far right parties want to throw homosexuals off rooftops, strip normies of the franchise, or 'conscript wombs'. That's why they are popular.
Yeah, we can quibble over the precise formulation, if you want, but the birth rates are what are. So I'm not sure what point you're making here.
Also... the statistics you cited are from nearly a decade ago for some reason?
Sure. I'm not exactly one of those types either, but his criticisms targeted a much larger group (like people worried about capitalism turning into neo-feudalism, which would include that well-known far-rightwinger Yannis Varoufakis).
The point is that "people aren't having kids" is a strong statement that's clearly evidence of some kind of catastrophe, which is presumably why you framed the question that way. People having one or two kid instead of two or three is less clearly so.
Unfortunately that's the most recent chart I could find for this.
Literally who? His party has zero seats, so this is another point in favor of the people OP is criticizing not being popular.
Not really. Yeah, literally zero kids is "extinction event within our lifetimes (or should I say, just barely after)", < 1 / < 2 kids, depending on were you live, combined with mass migration, is "replacement" the very idea he was mocking. So no, it has nothing to do with why I framed it that way.
You might still be right, but it might be a bad idea to so confidently deny my claim then.
Huh, I always took you for a fellow Euro. And if you are, that's an odd thing to say. Maybe you're just a bit younger than me.
Maybe he should have tried being a right-winger then, might be a bit more popular now.
I mean that as non-confrontationally as possible, as good faith as possible: you might want examine your biases if you take my literal statement of
as laughing at anyone. I'm not, I'm not here on The Motte to sneer. I'm saying that I don't see those problems as world/civilization ending, something that justifies, in the words of whoever that Dread Jim guy is, killing people in droves, normies and gays, apparently including normie myself. I say in the quote above, literally, that there ARE some problems in the society.
It's the most milquetoast disagreement that I could've voiced and you treat it as mocking you (or the right in general) - this level of defensiveness is remarkable in and of itself.
Let me rephrase my point in the most productive way:
I've spent time with real-life Maoists and they speak in exactly the same language. Their in-group communication where they don't have to justify their priors to each other looks remarkably similar. "The civilization will inevitably collapse due to [insert cause], this is why we need a violent revolution now. We need to kill [these groups of people] during the revolution." Maoists, in my experience, reinforced their positions to each other and then they "go to the people" to gather ideas and refine their theories. What they often found out is that normies (like me) are resistant to them because their purported solution to the problem is violent revolution.
That's all there is to my the observation - I sincerely apologize if you find it disagreeable.
Take it easy, you seem to be taking is as much more charged than it actually was. You probably should have also probably quoted more than the word "mocking", because I think "mocking the idea of" makes it clear it's ideas, rather than people. Feel free to substitute it with "downplaying" or "dismissing". I honestly don't see how you can claim you're not doing it, when you literally say that there are problem, but none of them include neo-feudalism, or replacement, because your life is good.
Cool, but I can't imagine a less productive conversation. Just entertaining your framing means I already lost, because you get to paint me however you want with no effort, and I'm the one that has to convince you that maybe you're wrong.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link