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 -
Parasitism, stripped of the morally-loaded connotation, is ultimately a classification of a symbiotic relationship between different species of organisms. The notion that symbiosis is an extremely widely-observed behavioral pattern in the Animal Kingdom, but for some reasons human relations can never be understood like that, is an artifact of political correctness. As far as the question over when is it appropriate to refer to someone as a parasite, you can say almost never. But when is it appropriate to understand relations between races of people as symbiotic, the answer is almost always. Take something like the behavior observed in the Animal Kingdom we call aggressive mimicry:
Foreign races of people establishing themselves in a host society- their identity, cultural signals, political influence, is unequivocally a symbiosis, its mere existence is derived from its interaction with its host.
But is in-group elderly care a parasitic relationship? The Elders of a society are typically the ancestors of the descendants investing in their care, so describing that as parasitism would not really conform with that classification of relationship observed ecologically. The impetus for elder care has in-group evolutionary advantages that explain its existence.
Take a racial and cultural identity like black. It exists purely in symbiosis with a host society. It depends on the host society for everything. It only exists relative to its host society. Without its host, it would not exist. Same with "Dreamers", foreigners who embed themselves in a host society. "Dreamers" only exist because of the long-term interaction between foreigners and their host body. That is a symbiotic relationship, in contrast with elderly care.
There are clearly non-parasitic symbiotic relationships. "Chimerica" is a symbiosis between America and China but one that is mutually beneficial. But when foreigners embed themselves in a host and demand all sorts of political, cultural, and economic concessions that harm the host Nation, it's valuable to understand that as parasitism, in order to properly understand the nature of the threat, even if it's not constructive to call anyone a parasite.
Honestly I am in awe at your ability to bring the Jews into every little topic, no matter how distant they may seem. Chapeau...
It's not at all a distant issue, the concept of social relations between races of people being characterized as "parasitism" originated with Jewish/Gentile cohabitation. That characterization of that as a foreign guest/host relationship originated at least with Marin Luther's writings but the concrete association goes back to the 18th century, i.e. the Enlightenment philosopher Johann Herder (1791):
But I pointed to a more concrete example of Dreamers or in the general sense mass third world migration, foreign diasporas who deman some right to access to the United States and Europe and massive political, economic, and cultural concessions. Nor is the concept of aggressive mimicry only limited to that historical relationship, I have indirectly accused you of engaging in that behavior by appealing to concepts like "fair competition" that appeal to Whites but are just empty words you use to try to justify your presence among us. You only signal those values in order to obfuscate the threat of genetic replacement from the third world by making it some natural outcome of "fairness", i.e. signaling values you know we have an affinity for, but for an aggressive purpose.
Other examples of mimicry would be Kash Patel's humorous attempts to appeal to White culture, which very often become that Inglorious Bastards three-fingers meme.
Seemingly the great improvements in this matter havent been to your taste.
The majority of them would rather live and operate here, and support and display loyalty to that country from here and not there. And exercise power here for the benefit of that foreign country. They want it both ways. Obviously I would be very happy for the development if it not were for the subversive loyalty to that foreign state at every institutional level of our culture. If they all went to Israel that would be one thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would ask if you're E Michael Jones- he's the only person I met who shares your talent for tying everything to Jews- but you're actually somewhat better on the uptake. You should take up longform writing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If it is sustainable over generations then no, if not then yes. This isn't a difficult question and it's clear that OP talks about the latter.
It's always been a feature of European culture. In 5th-century BC Athens, laws mandated that sons provide fathers with food, care, housing, and protection and they lost citizenship as a penalty if they failed to provide. If Elder care is not sustainable then it's a societal failure. A foreign diaspora harming the host nation is a much different kind of dynamic than elder care.
Under the Romans during the time of the republic the paterfamilias (oldest male head of the household) had full powers of life and death over his progeny, even when they were adults and had been married off, see how during the Catilinarian conspiracy a conspirator was killed with no trial whatsoever just on the command of his paterfamilias.
That too is part of "European Culture" as you say but it's a good thing we have decided as a society that parents killing their children is abhorrent and to be made illegal (this power of life and death was de facto outlawed during the early stages of the Empire, the practice of exposing newborns still continued despite being made illegal but that's a different thing than killing a 20 year old), a very similar argument can be made with Elder care when the elders are those who took and took from society back when they were young without contributing enough and now want the younger generations to cough up more so they can go to the grave living the high life with no regard for what happens for society when they are six feet under.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link