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 think you're way underestimating the difference in the way Fuentes vs Walsh come off. Walsh would not have said 'your body my choice'. He's just a lot less hoe-scaring. He talks like a social conservative who believes his own stated moral and practical reasoning and not one who's actually just bigoted.
I agree that they come off with very different demeanors, but that's obviously not why Shapiro put out a 45-minute special episode with no ad reads. What is the actual policy opinion being expressed by Nick's, "your body, my choice," that isn't also supported by Walsh? Walsh doesn't even support rape exceptions for abortion.
I would agree that walsh and fuentes have more similar 'actual policy opinions' than in the popular consciousness. But this is the motte, we're not a representative sample. Walsh is much less hoe-scaring because he talks like he believes his social and racial conservatism out of moral and practical reasons, and not like he believes it out of bigotry. Non-ideologues, especially women, care about that a lot more than they do specific policies. Walsh and Fuentes both have blandly standard trad-cath policy views on abortion, the difference is that Walsh stopped going to Latin mass because some interpersonal drama with Candace Owens convinced him to go to his local parish instead, and as far as anybody knows Nick Fuentes is not a consistent church attendee.
Now I don't actually know Fuentes's motivations. I'm just saying, the way he talks makes a bigger difference than we're giving it credit for because we're weird policy autists. Shapiro didn't put out a special episode with no adds because of that, obviously- he did it because he's Jewish and feels threatened. This is the baseline state of being Jewish and doesn't tell us much, and I doubt that the employees had much room to tell him to stop. Not that I'm suggesting they tried very hard- Walsh, like most actual rad trads, very likely is used to seeing low-IQ antisemitism associated with schizophrenic drama queens and probably neither thinks it's a societal emergency nor feels much personal sympathy for its evangelists, although I obviously can't speak to his personal motivations. But the difference in popular perception? Walsh comes off as a true believer with a reasoned value system. Fuentes comes off as an unhinged bigot. Principles are important vs women are gross(and gay-as-in-literally-homosexual misogyny is probably going to be as big an issue for Fuentes appealing to the normies as the anti-semitism).
To those that have followed Nick, I think he makes it pretty clear to his audience when he’s joking about things to the extent it doesn’t require him making a statement or apology about things. But I don’t think he’s politically insincere. He believes in a lot of truly anti-establishment policies. He’s an anti-Zionist which in the eyes of the establishment makes him an anti-Semite. He believes in biological differences between people and genders which makes him a racist and sexist to his opponents. Ben Shapiro plays much more to the mentality of the left when he attacks Nick than he seems to realize or even care about. I guess the “facts” started to care about his feelings.
Ben no doubt feels threatened by people like Nick which is why he doesn’t engage with his views but opts for a smear campaign against him wherever he deems it necessary and has the opportunity.
Nick is absolutely anti-Semetic, in the sense of holding an animus against the Jewish people and not merely the modern state of Israel. Probably not in the "6 million wasn't enough" way, but likely in the "109 aren't enough" way and the "~250k is more like it" way. The same applies for the charge of racism: I don't think he'd push the TND button, but he'd definitely support a back-to-Africa program, and not out of any sense of care or goodwill towards blacks.
More importantly, his audience is not captive to his particular politics; if anything, it's the other way around. Fuentes is currently the most influential avatar of right-wing antisemitism, and if he moderates his stance to unacceptable levels the memeplex which backs him will simply find a new host.
What evidence are you leaning on in support of the accusation? It has to be more than that’s he’s said inflammatory things for effect.
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
More options
Context Copy link