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 -
As most know, there has been a media battle within the Con Inc ecology. I want to go over some of those developments. If you know the lore you can skip the story so far.
Story so far
On October 27 Tucker Carlson did an interview with Nick Fuentes on The Tucker Carlson show. Sitting at a comfortable 6 million views, it’s one of his most viewed videos. Following that interview, jewish ethnonationalists like Ben Shapiro and Jonathan Greenblatt made the rounds condemning and calling for disavowals. But condemning and disavowing Tucker Carlson is easier said than done.
When the Heritage Foundation released their condemnation video, they distinctly claused out Tucker from their criticism. This, for jewish ethnonationalists, was outrageous. Eliciting remarks from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Ted Cruz, and other jewish ethnonationalist stooges. Tucker needed to be firmly disavowed, and Fuentes was not to be talked to or debated, but ostracized and ‘canceled’. Heritage Foundation president, Kevin Roberts, went back like a beaten dog and put up a second apology video saying as much. Still, it was not enough and condemnation articles, calls to resign and protest resignations rained in.
Despite all this chaos, Roberts kept his presidency, Tucker remained unfazed, and Fuentes was only emboldened by the attention. releasing an hour long monolog on the alleged overbearing fact of jewish ethnonationalist influence in American politics and his position on the modern JQ. The jewish ethnonationalist front had to hit back somehow.
Enter Chuck Schumer, proposing a senate resolution to condemn Nick Fuentes and the platforming of him by Tucker Carlson.
Whilst Fuentes is only emboldened by such attention, it might be different for Carlson. It is, after all, harder for a man of credibility and standing like him to shrug off an official disavowal like that. Though it could not have come from a better direction as far as a right winger is concerned, it is still bad.
The Carlson Rebellion
Missing from the firestorm of outrage and shock from the Fuentes Carlson interview is the simple question of... What exactly is Tucker Carlson doing here? Unlike Fuentes, who lives for this type of spectacle, Tucker is, one can imagine, an actual person with connections and things to lose. So why?
In a recent episode Tucker laid out his answer to the Fuentes Question. Young mostly white men are flocking to the extremes, both left but mostly right, because America sucks. Everything from the housing market, job market, education, media, domestic and foreign policy. It's all anti-white. It's all anti-male. What exactly does anyone expect young white men to do? What confident identity is even available to young white men?
To that extent one can sense Tuckers ire towards the establishment and those who shill for it. How is it possible to allow things to go on like this? To ignore it? Telling young white men to be individual whilst every other group is forming coalitions to outcompete them is suicidal and stupid. Why can't we tell them something else? Something they actually want to listen to. Well, that might lead to another holocaust in the minds of paranoid jews so, no, we can't. Young white men just have to die alone and abused.
Say what you want about Fuentes, but Tucker, at the very least, has a proposition that is open to compromise with the ethnonationalist jews on the right: This individualist free market zionism stuff isn't working anymore. Things, as they currently are, have to change. And if the only response to that reality is calling everyone an anti-semite or a nazi then what is even the point of this?
Over on another forum, a groyper is swearing up and down that groyperism isn't all about The Jews. And here you go ruining it for them.
I don't like the gropyers. Nick Fuentes is a Mexican gayhomo larping as a whitenat.
But philosemeticism has clearly run its course in the West. The left discarded race blind meritocracy. Now, the right has too. You can't unring that bell. Saying "Jews have a disproportionate amount of influence in the halls of power compared to their population" can't be taboo if everyone is running around saying that about the whites. If Con. Inc demands its audience stop noticing, they'll be ignored. You can't be a nationalist for America and be a Zionist at the same time. You won't fool anyone.
Yes, that means you, Ben Shapiro.
Well yes, the younger right is. I don't think it's the same cohort changing their mind over time. But I wonder to what degree the young right feels the intellectual drift of the left has forced them to be like the left, grudgingly, or even if the left's diversity machine arrayed against them wasn't around, they'd pursue identity politics anyway. As in even if the country 95% white, we should stoke white consciousness.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link