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 -
The Dread Jim weighs in on the "moderate right".
Basically, to him the right isn't progressing at anywhere near the rate it needs to in order to enact radical change. He uses Asmongold, the popular live streamer, as an example. Asmongold is perceived to be anti-woke, but in reality all of his positions (in Dread Jim's opinion) are moderate/centrist.
For Dread Jim, the only way to save civilization is through the following:
He seems to view this last solution as the most important. Fathers should once again be responsible for marrying off their daughters, and if that's not possible, the state should step in. Similarly, adultery should be punishable by death.
Barring these radical changes "failure to murder everyone who is insufficiently left is likely to also be 'extreme far radical right'".
I am a right-wing extremist. I am aware of "The Dread Jim" from many previous discussions through the various iterations of this forum.
His proposed solutions are not feasible, nor are they necessary, nor does he appear to possess insight or a track record that makes him worth listening to or discussing in any significant way. He, like many similar "right-wing extremists", appears to be possessed of a combination of panicked fearfulness and abstracted zealotry aimed at a sort of imaginary, narrative-based glorious final battle. He, like many others, lacks the necessary coldness of heart to effectively prosecute the culture war.
His suggestions are similarly foolish.
How do you convince people that life was better when they were really "people" in the same way men are without a jackboot? This went away for a reason in the west, all the religious and mythological reasons were shown to be "fake" (as far as society is concerned, I dont want to engage in a theological debate) how do you put the gene back in the bottle?
The past is not an unknown world to us. We have solid evidence of what the world was like before the progressive era, and it did not consist solely or even primarily of dehumanized women and tyrant men. Men and women have loved each other and cooperated together for all of recorded history, and they can do so again. The brave new progressive world has made both men and women wretched. Currently, it is expending vast effort to try to paper over its deficiencies on behalf of women in particular, usually by the use of blatant social and legal double-standards. Remove some of these, and maybe we can get back to something resembling constructive engagement once more.
This is the inverse of your criticism of Jim. Jim believes you that the past was pure evil, and wants to return that evil you both agree we've lost to the modern world. I do not believe you that the past was pure evil, and want to return the non-evil we've lost to the modern world. Your system has not solved men abusing women. It has not solved rape. It has not solved sexual harassment or coercion. I believe my system can do better on all of those things that yours, and I think we can and possibly have proven it.
Crime in the first world is the lowest it has ever been at any point in history. You are in less danger over the last 20 years than any other person in the history of the world, for the most part by a significant margin.
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