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?
Every post of yours in this thread shows a steadfast and truly exceptional dedication to pretending to be retarded and I am genuinely impressed from a rhetorical standpoint. I know you are smart enough to understand the concept of a joke and the concept of irony, which makes your constant and wilful refusal to ever engage with what these people said in context impressive imo. I think it sucks from every other standpoint though.
I think nobody suggested that the they should be investigated for conspiracy to commit murder wrt the gas chamber chat. Everyone understands that they were not seriously suggesting that.
However, the attitude of a group about what is or is not appropriate to joke about is often indicative of deeper beliefs. And there is such a thing as "haha only serious" (think Eliezer announcing MIRI's 'Dying with dignity' strategy on a first of April). Joking gives you plausible deniability to hint at deeper beliefs which are outside the groups overton window to state outright. If A is into B, A might joke about A being into B. It puts the possibility into the open without creating common knowledge.
If you do not want to expand the overton window in a certain direction, you typically would not make jokes in that direction. For example, if a guy tends to joke about having taken 20 cocks in the ass during the weekend, that will do little to cement his reputation as straight.
Take rape jokes, which are deeply outside the overton window today. The reason is not that they directly lead to rape, but that they serve as a completely deniable signal for the opinion "rape is acceptable". Not everyone who tells rape jokes is into rape culture, obviously, some people just like dark humor, but they can certainly be used to transport the message "rape is not a big deal".
So X making jokes about gas chambers does not mean that X is a Nazi who has read Mein Kampf five times. But it indicates that X regards updating his group's beliefs towards him being a Nazi at least neutrally.
Personally, I would like to see people indicating that they have noticed the skulls of those who came before them, and strive to learn from their mistakes.
If a leftwing group chat made jokes about the Holodomor, Mao or Pol Pot, this would make me very much disinclined to trust them with any power, as they have clearly not learned from the past. If a right-wing group chat thinks that gas chamber jokes are fun and edgy, that does not necessarily mean they will build Auschwitz 2.0 at the earliest opportunity, but still it is sufficient for me not wanting them to have any power either.
I would instead be more inclined to trust them. Considering the typical handling with denial and apologia, leftoid humor at the expense of the genocidal tendencies of communist regimes would indicate that these atrocities at least occupy some mind share rather than ignorance and sweeping under the rug.
More options
Context Copy link
While I think those jokes are tasteless and crude, I am now reminded back when me and my peers were twelve to fourteen year old girls telling dead baby jokes. Good grief, où sont les neiges d'antan! Did dead baby jokes back in 1978 lead to the liberalisation of abortion in the Ireland of 2018? After all, they must have been used to transport the message "dead babies are not a big deal".
More options
Context Copy link
At the 2016 White House Correspondents' Dinner president Barack Obama made the following remark:
"Eight years ago, I was a young man, full of idealism and vigor, and look at me now. I am gray and grizzled, just counting down the days 'til my death panel."
Do you think Obama was trying to expand the overton window to make more acceptable the idea that a panel of doctors would decide on the euthanization of non-productive or otherwise undesirable individuals? Do you think Obama's remark indicates that he and his group regard the idea of these "death panels" at least neutrally?
Or do you think that Obama was actually mocking his opponents and critics? That he considered the criticism so ridiculous in itself, that he did not even bother constructing a joke based on it, he just repeated the criticism verbatim while being fully confident that laughter would ensue?
Now, if it is the case that Obama was reminding everyone how ridiculous his opponents were just by repeating their words, then it could be the case that the people being ridiculed were fully aware that this is what was happening, and that there is no good way to defend against this kind of ridicule. And in this case someone who is being ridiculed could resort to lying, saying maybe something like "they told us they are not setting up these death panels, but here is Obama himself casually talking about them in an approving way!", and hoping that at least some people will believe the lie.
More options
Context Copy link
That whole line of argument is illegitimate, and like, so 2020. I’m not sacrificing a single joke for your ideological witchhunts. Hilarity aside, such jokes protect and normalize rape and nazi apologia? Good! I want all opinions protected, and every citizen participating in the political process.
I don’t want to blame the entire state of the world on your line of argument, but it did single-handedly make it more polarized and censorious, and what is even less forgiveable, mirthless.
More options
Context Copy link
Jokes on you, nobody else cares! I mean, I agree that they absolutely shouldn't be trusted with so much as town dogcatcher. But that hasn't stopped anyone to the left of Mitt Romney in my lifetime. Praising communist psychopaths gets you elite university professions and has no negative consequences.
Hey, have a little respect for the MSM crowd that don't like the gaudy flags.
More options
Context Copy link
It can be that, but it can also be the complete opposite. For example, I trust myself to not engage in immoral behaviour, therefore I do not walk on egg-shells around moral subjects (this scares the shit out of some people, though)
Homosexuals might find it easier to joke about how gay they are, but as will straight people who have overcome any fear of being thought of as gay, because they know for sure that they're not. As with the Horse Shoe Theory, the correlation is curved.
A lot of people with dark humor have been victims of the things that they joke about, by the way. I find it quite distasteful when people who haven't experienced such things accuse them of being insensitive, which is often what happens. Too much morality is performative, and I find this whole situation to be another instance of people point fingers at others in order to feel morally superior and score virtue signaling points, or at the very least it's a reaction prompted by fear (rather than goodwill, taste, actual concern, etc)
You could argue that some jokes are bad taste, but I think this depends on a lot of factors, and that most of them are hard to judge from an outside perspective. Once you know a person well, you will be able to tell their real attitude towards things that they joke about, and the mindset which prompted the joke.
Edit: Extra thing of note: If somebody is a bad person, it's better for everyone if they show it than to hide it. For this reason, I see no point in punishing speech even if it's vile.
Agreed. There is this joke about a holocaust survivor dying, going to heaven and telling God a holocaust joke. God tells him that this is Not Funny. He replies, "well, I guess you just had to be there."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think cjet has the right of it below. The stupid thing these people did was not follow the golden rule of the internet - don't say anything you don't want held against you.
Also question: Is Wayne Hope a nazi? What about Francis Greenslade? Or what about Shaun Micallef, it's his show. Did that clip in anyway make you think any of them might be a nazi? Or did the context tell you they weren't serious, even though Wayne explicitly states that Nazis really are a superior race?
More options
Context Copy link
Now that we've established that this is not about celebration of evils like the Holocaust, we can talk about what is really going on here.
There is nothing wrong with pushing the overton window. You make the implication that Holocaust jokes are made so that one day we can genocide Jews again, but that's silly. With logic like that, I should have voted against gay marriage so that they wouldn't try to trans the kids next!
Yes, telling jokes are a way to wage the culture war. Since it is quite literally who/whom the entire topic is rather boring to talk about.
Err, aren't you making his point for him?
I would say the quoted text is a bad reason to be against gay marriage. You can just let gays get married and then not trans the kids. He is saying it's bad to allow [fine thing] because its in the same direction as [worse thing]. What am I missing?
Once they got gay marriage, they DID try to trans the kids next.
Of course but with logic like that, you also shouldn't abolish race slavery because next they'll give them the right to vote and then after that they'll be given Noble privileges without responsibilities and then...
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
Governor Gavin Newsom today formally requested that the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform open an investigation into the shocking and deeply offensive text messages sent by leaders of Republican National Committee (RNC) linked organizations across the country.
Totally fair politics, for what it's worth, but Newsom is at least pretending to think they were being earnest.
More options
Context Copy link
They don’t need to. They can just say that to the entire class of students they teach with a straight face.
Maybe we could start a left-wing group chat called "The Young Turks", named in honor of the group behind the Armenian genocide. Nah, that'd be too obviously bait.
/s
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your position can only be taken as substantive if one believes that there is some degree of separation between X and Y. No one can demonstrate this because no such separation exists. It's just young people. The only real difference is how the Overton Window is positioned.
More options
Context Copy link
Not really much to say but "lighten up, Francis". People do use jokes for that. They also use jokes for other things. For instance, if the members of a group knows that people who don't like them much think certain jokes are beyond the pale, they might use them as a shibboleth. Or if they know what their opponents think of them, they might jokingly adopt that persona as a way of jeering in their general direction.
As Stalin once said, dark humor is like food; not everyone gets it. Doesn't mean everyone who uses it is Stalin (or Hitler)
More options
Context Copy link
So we can safely assume that anyone who's ever been in the vicinity of an "eat the rich" joke in private is just itching for some cannibalistic Stalinism?
Will you be calling for AOC to be censured and removed from congress?
Considering the events which transpired, vanilla Stalinism appears to have been cannibalistic enough.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thank you, I broke out in laughter for about 2 minutes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link