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 -
Yes, but if those people want to do that and kill all the Jews and align all of society behind a charismatic militaristic leader… and on top of all that they explicitly call themselves Nazis… then surely it would be weird not to call them Nazis? (Again, this is all an "if". I'm not saying that I think the Republican Party are especially heading in that direction. I certainly don't believe the YR chat logs show anything of the sort.)
I suppose at the limit it's possible that something could resemble something else so closely that it would be reasonable to share the label. But, like men who pretend to be women, the limit that delineates between the source and the imitation remains and can be revealed should it be necessary. If those hypothetical people call themselves Nazis you can point out that they'll never be real Nazis until they fail, lose, kill themselves, are executed, live in exile, see the ruins of their nation carved up between Russia and America and their political movement become lawfully systematically repressed and used as the popular byword for evil for the next 80+ years.
Personally I think Neo-Nazi would be a more accurate label, "if". It encompasses both the important similarities and the critical difference. People are reluctant to use it though I think because instead of conjuring the threat of global military conflict it instead summons the idea of low class skinheads beating up isolated immigrants, which is bad in itself but also suggests a degree of impotence and unpopularity. There are simply far bigger contemporary problems than Neo-Nazis. The average inner city drug gang is a bigger problem.
I'm no expert on historic Nazi psycho-sociology but I imagine the dynamism and authenticity of the movement played some role in its appeal. That is, not being a throwback to a previous failed movement from a foreign culture. It's more than something they can believe in, it was something/someone that reciprocated and believed in them. Post WW1 Germans looking to a living German for leadership of the German nation is more coherent than post WW2 non-Germans looking to a dead failed German for leadership of a non-German nation. For anyone living post 1945 it's not possible to sincerely heil Hitler. He's dead! A dead loser and an abject fucking failure, and yet to give him his dues he made it his own, he didn't try to call himself Genghis Khan or march around saluting the Sun King or some such.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link