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?
Would you agree with your vice president on the nature of pearl clutching opposition by people who claim they are opposing support of Hitler, when they are opposing things that are not actually support of Hitler?
Is there a reason to believe the young conservatives in the group chat demonstrate / support neonazism, support of slavoery, and unabashed bigotry?
Others have noted the locker room banter nature of the discussion, both on the structural language dynamics and personal experience. You have confessed not understanding such forms of humor, which is a fair admission of a substantial limitation that could be a result of a lack of personal experience and/or ability to model others. However, the nature of such admissions of self-limitation is that the self-limited do not get to set the framing over those more familiar with the topic.
Since inserting a pejorative assumption is a timeless form of political attack, why should anyone be concerned enough to address such a framing? Should the Republicans be concerned about the rise of wifebeaters after being asked if they've stopped beating their wives yet?
Is there any evidence that denouncing these not-Hitler-supporters would have any correlation, let alone causation, with extremism and violence?
If so, what is this evidence? If there is no evidence, why does the question link the non-dunciations of not-nazis to empowering extremism and violence?
Why do you believe there are any self-identifying actual Nazis feeling at home in the GOP?
Your own article only points to satirical-Nazis, for whom self-association is a matter of in-group humor that you have treated as dark matter Whether you understand dark-matter-humor or not is actually irrelevant, though. Whether you get out-group humor or not, Satire-Nazis are not Actual-Nazis.
We know this not least because Actual-Nazis had a historical record of being murderously serious about their agendas as identified in formal Nazi literature, and openly self-identified as Nazis in very serious contexts. By contrast these very leaks show the satire-Nazis being not murderous or serious or openly self-identifying as Nazis, and only privately doing so in unserious contexts. Actual-Nazis did not need to resort to clandestine humor groups for safety or security. Doing so is, itself, evidence against feeling 'at home,' as Actual-Nazis at home did not need to cloak their intent with banter. Their open racial animus was one of the historically defining things about them, which this leak- by its nature as a leak- demonstrates a lack of in these young republicans.
Come on, that is a strawman you are beating. Nobody is suggesting that these guys are members of the NSDAP, an organization which was disbanded long before they were born. Since 1945, only the very stupid have openly expressed admiration for the NSDAP in the Western world. The ones with a bit of a brain have noticed that openly flying the swastika is a good way to become a social outcast.
In Germany, there are numerous links between the far-right anti-migration AfD and neofascist organizations.
Imagine you are a 25yo white nationalist in today's America. Now you could get a swastika tattoo and join the Aryan Brotherhood or something, but then you will never make a difference. Or you could join one of the two major parties, and the one closer aligned to your views are the Republicans. Of course, merely supporting mainstream Republican policy will not save the White race, you want to increase support for your own world view.
Jokes in small groups are a great way to reach a common understanding that Nazis are not icky. Obviously not everyone who plays along is a Nazi, perhaps some only like the jokes because the SJ people are whining about the Nazis all the time, but it is very much a step in the right direction, moving the overton window where you want it to go.
So... they're not Nazis but they totally are Nazis. Just because we (the side calling them Nazis) are not saying they are formally members of a defunct political party but in fact we do mean that they are indeed members of a defunct political party in everything but formal name of the party.
My head hurts. Clearly I am too stupid to get the fine nuances of "I'm not saying they're Nazi Nazis but I am saying they are Nazi Republicans" or "Republican Nazis" or "Nazi fascist nazi Fascist".
More options
Context Copy link
If nobody is suggesting that these guys are members of the NSDAP, an organization which was disbanded long before they were born, then there is no honesty or virtue in trying to tar these guys with the moral connotations of members of the NSDAP by equating them with members of the NSDAP by labeling them as members of the NSDAP. Many people do so, including the OP, who repeatedly insists on this connection and the sincerity of their beliefs on the charge.
Now, if you want to accuse the OP of bad faith, lying, incompetence, or of being an irrelevant minority akin to a lizardsmen constant, by all means feel free to do so. It will not change that the behavior cataloged here is not the behavior of the Nazis who made the term Nazi a multi-generational accusation.
The overton window moving towards 'Nazis are not icky' is a natural and not particularly tragic development if people want to use Nazi for things other than members of the NSDAP or people particularly like them. Whether people who would prefer it remains associated with the past connation so they can tar their political enemies with the connotation want the overton window to shift in the direction they are actually pushing it is rather irrelevant.
The overton window being shifted to 'everything icky is Nazi and that is a Bad Thing' is also being dressed up by extremely tired checkboxing of Umberto Ecos work. The language police must move in concert with the intellectual police in order to maintain the unfalsifiable moral high ground - you actually are nazi because according to this Smart Man what you are doing is in line with nazism!. That the intellectualism is being rejected is just further proof of the moral and intellectual superiority that the Not Nazi faction wishes to enjoy. Pity about the whole practical power translation bit, but thats not as important as self actualization.
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