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 -
Big leak of the Young Republicans groupchat, spanning multiple high level members across the nation's "premier Republican youth organization" (as it calls itself), including staffers for GOP representatives, at least one Trump admin employee, at least one elected official, and other high ranking conservatives. "Young" in this case is 18-40, adults working in a professional capacity.
The leaks showcase praise for Hitler, jokes about gas chambers, comments on Jewish dishonesty and other antisemitic messages. Also comments supporting slavery. Along with it is generic racism and bigotry such as widespread usage of slurs.
It also shows an interesting insight into what ordinary republican activists are thinking behind close doors.
One interesting thing is their fear that tying a political opponent within the party to white supremacists and Nazis might hurt them in the general election, but make them more popular among the base.
The response has been mixed.
Elected state senator Rob Ortt says
Adviser for Elise Stefanik says
And Roger Stone says
However, some Republicans in high places don't seem to view it as a major deal. Such as JD Vance, whose only comment is to call it "pearl clutching"
Now I have to disagree with our vice president here, I don't think it is pearl clutching to oppose support of Hitler. I also have to wonder how sincere it is to deflect away the topic and talk about "powerful people call for political violence." when it seems calls for violence happened in the chat given the many jokes about gassing and even bombing political opposition. Is it not possible to be against neonazism such as "I love Hitler" and talk about sending opposition to the gas chambers your opponents and Jay Jones's awful comments? Stefanik, Ortt and others seem to manage. Plenty of others also seem capable of this feat and have criticized both.
Richard Hanania, author of The Origins of Woke, suggests that these sorts of group chats are actually really common among the right wingers he interacted with. In fact his response to this seems to indicate agreement this chat is tame compared to many conversations he has seen.
Some beginner questions for discussion.
is neonazism, support of slavery, and unabashed bigotry such as this actually common among young conservatives as Hanania and the group chat themselves seem to believe?
In that same vein which response is better, someone like Ortt and Stefanik or Vance? And should the Republican party be concerned about the rise of neonazis and support of slavery if question 1 is yes?
Often what we see now is people "hiding their power level" with extremism, and it's often not revealed till they get to the point no one seems denouce them much. This is happening with Jay Jones now, and has happened before in cases like Mark Robinson "black Nazi". Even now Vance can't bring himself to denouce this. Is this tribalist loyalty helping to empower extremism and violence?
A common complaint among the right is "they called us Nazis". But often, we see some right wingers calling themselves Nazis. The aforementioned "black Nazi" Mark Robinson, candidate for LT Gov John Reid in Virginia, etc. As Hanania himself pointed out, the only major national politicians to refer to Trump as Hitler was JD Vance (and RFK per community note, but that might not have counted under his usage of "national politician"). Even the leaked group chat expressed this belief about the Kansas delegation. Now I've been a strong believer in individual responsibilities and have fought for it consistently, so I do the same here and believe that the only people who should be called Nazis are the individuals who praise Hitler/want gas chambers/call themselves nazi/etc. But question 4 is, why do so many of these self identifying Nazis seem to feel at home in the GOP, and why do they seem to believe they might have decent levels of support? How many others are "hiding their power level" too as suggested?
After the lefty reaction to the Kirk assassination I absolutely don't care about this, and will never care about anything like this from my own side ever again. OP wildly overestimates the number of fucks the right has left to give.
Do you believe that all of politics can only be summed up as "left" and "right" and that it is impossible to be both against killing people like Kirk and against racism/neonazism/etc?
If you do believe this, then why do Republicans like Gov Scott, Elise Stefanik, Roger Stone, etc seem to be able to denounce the chat without saying positive things about killing Kirk? Are they fake right wingers or something?
Yes.
Let me put it like this. When a high profile Jan 6 defendant gets tenure at a major university, and becomes the mentor to the next president, I might be willing to entertain the notion that I have enemies to the right. If the town my daughter is growing up in doesn't flip from 80% white to 30% white over her lifetime like mine did, I might be willing to entertain that I have enemies to the right. If I can look up resumes in my field and not see that 50% of them have some variation of "we prioritize hiring diversity", I might be willing to entertain that I have enemies to the right.
But my life has been made so infinitely worse by my enemies to the left, I don't understand why I could possibly care about these theoretical enemies to my right. They've literally never done anything to me.
Feels a bit like being a Weimar conservative who would rather get shot by the Nazis than give the Communists one more inch.
But such is life.
More options
Context Copy link
You appear to think of politics entirely on the basis of whether policies create material problems for you in your life (and, granted, in your daughter's). Don't you have a concept of politics as rooted in moral values unrelated to your own personal fate? Is there any amount of evil that people to your right could wreak on strangers that would outweigh making the trains run on time in your specific neck of the woods?
1990's colorblind liberalism is dead and it wasn't the right wingers who killed it. Since we now live in some kind of post-liberal racial spoils hellscape, I'll be voting for my own team, thanks.
I ask again: how do you justify this morally? Some might say that unpleasant circumstances when doing the right thing will give you a material disadvantage is when it is most important (and indeed admirable) to behave ethically.
How does a soldier morally justify shooting the enemy instead of his squadmates? Traditionally, it was by begging forgiveness from God, though I have no idea what the modern recommendation is. The point is, it's in almost every case a secondary concern to victory.
Yes, but the more apt analogy to the problem I had in mind is the temptation to commit war crimes that would increase your odds of victory. "Well the enemy have started torturing toddlers for information, so we might as well do the same thing" = "Well the Left aren't doing anything to rein in their evil loonies, so why should I lift a finger about evil loonies in my own tribe?". In both cases, ethics dictate that if you actually hold a moral belief that [torturing children in wrong]/[a given Tribe has a responsibility to rein in its crazies], you should hold fast to that principle even if your enemy violates it first and indeed, even if it places you at a material disadvantage in a given set of circumstances. Fair-weather principles are not principles at all. They're just norms.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Clearly
is a moral position.
It may not be one you agree with, but it's no less a (n a) moral position than the "post-liberal racial spoils hellscape."
You seem to be begging the question that there is an objectively correct morality and deviating from the progressive racism violates that, without actually filling in the gaps of why that is objectively correct and the losers should enjoy
being in the hands of an angry godsacrificing their children for the wellbeing of the ungrateful.None of what I've been saying has been about racism, or indeed any object-level Right vs Left issue. My objection is to the principle of basing one's politics exclusively on what will lead to one's personal comfort. That seems to be a textbook example of amoral behavior no matter what moral principles you subscribe to, assuming you have any at all. Sure, "support my own team" could be a moral position! But what @Skeletor posted was:
And what bothers me about that is the "Since" clause, not the "I'll be voting for my own team" in a vacuum. It makes it sound rather as if he is voting in whichever direction will maximize his personal comfort at a given time, not in a principled way based on moral positions for which he would be prepared to make sacrifices to his own personal welfare. "I'll always vote for my team no matter what" would be a moral position. "It seems the outgroup has defected and it's a free-for-all, so I'm looking out for Number One" is not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why should I need to justify it morally at all? Whose team should I be on if not my own? I didn't create this system, I just refuse to play along with progressives who seem to think I'm obligated to accept the bottom rung in it.
You shouldn't be on a "team", not to the extent that it directs all your actions. You should be trying to do the right thing, whatever this appears to be to your conscience.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The other side sure doesn't care about my fate. Why is it on me to be their infinite moral superior, to sacrifice myself and everyone I care about?
Any, yes. When the amount of evil is somewhere near the "actual death camps or radio broadcasts telling people to hack apart their neighbors" level, I would care.
Does that amount include my people being the only acceptable target of racism and sexism, to the point the other side tried changing the dictionary so their bigotry doesn't count? No.
I wasn't asking anybody to sacrifice themselves. I was just really struck by the way WhiningCoil's grievances seemed entirely rooted in "my daughter", "my field", "my life" and wanted to interrogate that, because I was curious whether he would genuinely endorse the idea that he chooses his politics for the benefit of himself and his immediate inner circle, and not for any question of principle. This isn't even really a Blue versus Red thing - it would satisfy that condition if he mentioned some important Red Tribe moral causes which might guide his vote, but where policies have no material effects on him or anyone he knows.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I was going to post a reply of my own but I think I'll just updoot this one.
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