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 -
Last week we had a conversation about Tucker Carlson’s interview of Nick Fuentes. This week we see two more salvo’s in the conversation:
New York Times: Nick Fuentes Was Charlie Kirk’s Bitter Enemy. Now He’s Becoming His Successor. [Archive]
Ben Shapiro on X [YouTube]:
I attribute some material amount of Trump’s political rise to the mainstream media covering him so much. One, because he drove engagement; two, because I think they thought he’d be easy to beat. Fuentes was catapulted into the mainstream when elements of the media and the left tried to pin the Kirk shooter as a far-right groyper. I didn’t believe Trump would succeed, so maybe I shouldn’t trust myself, but I struggle to believe that Fuentes will actually go mainstream. Shapiro plays many clips of Fuentes. To me, it sounds like Fuentes is joking in some, but I think they are extreme enough that at least most Republicans will be turned off. With Shapiro entering the ring and what my Twitter feed is feeding me, it seems like there are definite battle lines being drawn on the right.
Shapiro’s fellow Daily Wire commentator Matt Walsh:
It’s hard for me to gauge “normie” right circles, as before Kirk’s assassination, I couldn’t have definitively differentiated between Kirk’s and Crowder’s campus antics. It seems like Kirk may have been the most influential -if not, very possibly ascendant to be - figure on the right. Not sure through Kirk's sheer influence, but also keeping the coalition together and keeping the more radical wing at bay. I wonder if Trump will weigh in.
It’s hard to do the, “we are principled civic nationalists who believe in the inherent dignity of every human being,” routine when your organization employs Matt Walsh. Walsh believes basically the same things as Fuentes does. The only difference is that Walsh believes that Jews are part of based White Western Civilization, and Fuentes doesn’t. It’s incredibly transparent why Ben Shapiro is taking such a firm stance on this issue in particular. This is why Fuentes is going mainstream.
I consistently see people talking about Matt Walsh like he's some turbo bigot who's openly making insinuations, but upon inspection of any of these claims they always seem to just...fall apart? Like today he kinda went viral with a list of things he thinks Republicans need to pass. And it was like all sorts of reasonable things like dismantling SNAP entirely, banning people from holding public office if they have a citizenship from another country that hasn't been renounced, requiring English literacy to run for office, banning immigrants from countries where >10% of immigrants from said country are receiving public benefits.
Other times he has done things like advocating expanding the use of the death penalty, he ran lead on the Tennessee anti-transing of kids legislation, etc. It all seems pretty in-bounds, just a bunch of stuff that can get the pearl clutchers to do said clutching.
You are correct that Matt Walsh’s positions are standard conservative ideals taken to their logical conclusion, my point is that Nick Fuentes’s positions are also conservative ideals taken to their logical conclusion. The only difference is that Fuentes would count Jewish identity as foreign citizenship, which it essentially is under Israeli law.
Lots of people in the US can apply for citizenship elsewhere and be let in. By a quirk of genetics, I could apply for Irish citizenship and be accepted. My mom did it, my blue tribe siblings are doing it. I refused, because I'm American, married to an American, with American kids.
But because the offer is open, should I be forbidden from ever holding office? I reject allowing another country's absurd citizenship policies to effect what Americans can do in America to that degree.
I’m not the one who wants to forbid dual citizens from holding office, Matt Walsh is (if @anti_dan is to be believed). My point is that in terms of the actual legal rights possessed by a person, being a Jewish American is functionally equivalent to being an Israeli-American dual citizen living in the USA.
Eh, no it isn't. In particular, if a Jewish non-Israeli visits Israel, they still have full US consular support.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link