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 -
I can only speak for myself here, as someone who would broadly call himself aligned with JD Vance (millennial with a similar enough upbringing that I deeply sympathize with his reactionary streak, even if I'm skeptical about whether or not he has a coherent policy solution).
White consciousness would be unnecessary and arguably ridiculous in an America with Reagan era demographics, and I have no desire to live in a world of "affirmative action, but for the chuds" (I work a company that's something like this and in practice it frequently feels like working in Idiocracy.). When concerns about "diversity" or the "underrepresented" meant ADOS blacks it at least had a reason (and no, I'm not some Wignat who thinks that ADOS blacks aren't Americans. They are, if anything, among the most American ethnicities. Equity is probably not possible in my lifetime but if ADOS Americans and American Indians were the only affirmative action demographics it would be an acceptable outcome.), even if I strongly oppose the likes of Kimberle Crenshaw.
The problem now is that (especially if the left and libertarians get their way concerning immigration, and skilled/educated legal immigration is arguably worse here from a political perspective) we don't have mid-late 20th century demographics, and the "underrepresented" could be taken to include the entire world. It's entirely possible (and arguably probable) that white Americans will remain the sin eaters/punching bags for everyone else's problems long after they become merely the largest plurality, and long after it's become the case that white Americans merely fare "average" in terms of outcomes.
In practice, "diversity" is a means for white progressives to render their conservative white opponents demographically irrelevant given that skilled immigrants from pretty much everywhere assimilate into the educated white progressive milieu (and yes, American Jews are largely the alpha pluses of this group but it's fundamentally a gentile white, dare I say Yankee thing).
Beyond that, it's merely a matter of aesthetic preferences. Am I small-minded enough to find it especially grating to be condescended to about "privilege" by the kids of either robber barons, genocidaires, or some other variety of "civil war/political loser" (Allow me to pick on Konstantin Kisin for a second. I'm not going to take the word of someone who left Russia as a preteen child whose father got exiled by Boris Yeltsin's government for excessive corruption to be especially authoritative.) back home? Yes. Would I rather live in a place where people are mostly like me? Yes, and if that makes me a bigot so be it. I'm not a big fan of the Bush family but I don't see how things are going to get better for people like me if we hand Ramaswamy the keys.
More options
Context Copy link