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 -
It's strategically dishonest, he is angling for mainstream acceptance.
Conservatives should take note and build their own institutions, but mainstream media needs to go just because of the pro-regime anchoring effect it induces in normies.
"Strategically dishonest" - I don't think you can read his entire body of recent work and come to this conclusion, if you have any exposure to American progressives, or even the mainstream.
For example, the first paragraph of another recent article, "Man Needs Sex and Violence, Not Top-Down 'Meaning'" ends like this:
This is not how someone that cares about respectability writes in the USA 2023. The fact that he would include the impregnated girl's race at all will stop most left-of-center readers from going any further. The fact that he doesn't think her race is gratuitous opens a chasm of inferential distance between Hanania and the mainstream media, and he, as a self-confessed occasional troll, knows it.
More options
Context Copy link
I've also gotten that vibe from his recent work. He used to write more as a dissident left-winger kind of like Scott, but now it seems like he's trying to downplay his dissident views to move upward in the establishment.
Angling for that column in a mainstream medium, yeah, people have said.
The other thing about Richard H. is that he has always made me uncomfortable with his whole visage. I chalked it up to him being Palestinian and hence likely a product of cousin marriage. I've said this repeatedly elsewhere, but he always made me uneasy. Good essays, dude made me nervous, hated watching any videos of him.
Then something really weird happened on twitter.
At one point, on twitter during some heated debate, he posted a screen cap that was really rather surprising. It showed his screen, whatever article he wanted to showcase, and also 'context ads' he ..crossed out? Instead of blacking them out by cutting what's there - what I do when posting screencaps he just doodled over them or something. Probably a stimulant user. (do dumb shit faster, more efficiently).
Now, this might just be me being overly suspicious - but as a single guy, the context ads I get are usually of the type of 'hot girls down to fuck / hot milfs / shitty web war game / world of tanks / war thunder / weight loss gimmicks / lingerie. Some other innocuous fairly generic bait.
His screencap, on the other hand, was showing ads for swimsuits. But not just any swimsuits. Swimsuits for female children. Now, this could be nothing, but together with his whole weird looking yet fiercely intelligent bachelor (thus no wife or reason to look up children's swimsuit) does make me wonder whether he belongs in the ranks of people who are very easy to blackmail.
Because I have never seen a context ad for swimsuits for little children, ever. Female lingerie, yes. Kid stuff? Never. And I've heard that if you got to web stores, and look up a certain kind of product, it's going to show the same sort of product in your context ads then all the time. E.g. a friend was buying dioptric swimming goggles. Bought some, her context ads full of ads for dioptric swimming goggles for weeks..
People probably saved him posting this. He only left it up for a maybe minutes, I regret not saving it because the whole episode is so bizarre I've been wondering whether my memory is playing tricks on me. But that has never happened to me to the best of my knowledge, so I think he probably has .. a problem.
I get ads about Grammarly despite being excellent at spelling and grammar - I think the Google AI is pinging off me being a Grammar Nazi and doing some word-association.
It's possible Hanania's said something somewhere that associates with that in the AI's inscrutable brain. Or it's possible he has friends or family with a daughter and bought one of those as a present. I'm pretty sure the incidence of bad ad targetting and the incidence of family with kids are both higher than the incidence of paedophilia.
Good points!
I got the same ads, on youtube. I think everyone did, no ?
Maybe my brain was uncharitable.
However, why would he stay single ? I know he's ugly as sin, but he's very smart and very driven.
These are very attractive qualities for women!
I mean, yeah. I'm not 100% on this, maybe 40%, which is however fairly serious as I don't see pedos behind every corner like some people.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, I suppose better that than having ads for Mein Kampf and swastika banners follow you around to every website, in case it took that word-association a bit too far.
Who would be advertising Mein Kampf? It's out of copyright, and it's well-known enough that anyone who wanted a copy would go looking.
Not to mention, I don't think Google lets neo-Nazis buy Google ads, so even if it thought I'd respond well to neo-Nazi ads, there'd be none available.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I can't actually find any info online about whether he has kids. I know I've searched Amazon for "toddler panties" . . . because my daughter needed some. Entirely possible he was just buying stuff for his kids.
He's also written about why you should have kids, and "guy who thinks people should have kids does, in fact, have kids" seems like an expected outcome.
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