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 -
And how did things go for the minority groups in the Balkans… and how would they have probably ended up if outside powers hadn't intervened?
Sure they will; the same way Genghis Khan united the warring, feuding, fractious Mongol clans: by providing a common enemy to fight… and plunder.
This is a point Steve Sailer has been reiterating for a couple decades now: that "hating whitey" is the "KKKrazy glue holding together the Coalition of the Fringes." I see no reason for it to become less effective as the white demographic shrinks… and thus becomes easier to kick around and loot.
Because they liked it, or because they want to loot it?
But they do have the common belief that the white man is evil and screwing them over, so do they need anything more?
I keep encountering this argument, that as whites become a smaller and minority, we'll never have anything to fear; that even when we're down to 10% or less of the population, we can never face any real oppression, because the majority will be too diverse, divided, and busy fighting each other to ever do anything to us. I've encountered it here more than once.
And it's nonsense. Ahistorical nonsense.
To give the most obvious example how, apply this argument to Jews in Medieval Europe. The Teutonic Knights are fighting the Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Novgorod Republic — and vice versa — and they all hate each other, so the Jews are perfectly safe. Those people are all too busy warring with each other to commit any pogroms, don't you know?
Or look at diaspora Chinese in Southeast Asia. (Read Lee on what he had to deal with in Singapore.)
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And groups that hate each other have had no problems, historically, in dishing out the abuse to minorities — especially materially-successful "middleman minority" types — they both hate.
Who would rule?
The first three I don’t believe have ever ruled over a multicultural society. The first group has mayor of London but we are talking way more fragmented. The second Singapore would be closest example. The third never. The fourth occasionally in Mexico or Venezuela but while their people are the majority. The fifth yes they could pull it off.
It doesn't matter. Power can be contested and fought over and whites looted, oppressed, pogrommed, etc.
So we have a "Vivek type" in charge of the Fuck Whitey Coalition for a few years, with the property and labor of whites expropriated to the primary benefit of high-caste Indians, then an internal power struggle puts the "African" faction in the ascendancy, and we get one of them in charge of the Fuck Whitey Coalition, and the expropriated property and labor of whites goes mostly to the blacks for a bit. Then his lack of competence puts a mestizo Hispanic in place to depose him, so now whites are being oppressed for the benefit of mestizo Hispanics. Then a Chinese guy (with quiet CCP backing) tosses him out, and now whitey is looted to benefit the Chinese. Then he dies, and the Hispanics and blacks get into a low-level civil war — with plenty of street level ethnic violence — for a bit… and both sides rob Whitey for loot to fund their conflict…
Ask the Jews how power struggles over leadership in Medieval Europe worked out for them.
Edit: and it's not like you need someone to "rule" for people to deal with murderous cannibals living among them. (See also this).
You would need to assume outside intervention for any of that to occur. S Africa could be 100% white in a fortnight if they had the will to do it and there was no threat of outside intervention. Whites don’t lose in war when united.
Nonsense. I mean, not even most "white supremacists" of my acquaintance think that whites are so superior that they can overcome any numerical disadvantage, no matter how huge. I mean, consider a scenario where whites have shrunk to about 100 people, against 8 billion+ non-whites — including quite a few intelligent and technologically-competent people (like the East Asians). Are you saying that so long as those hundred whites are "united," they'll triumph despite the > 80-million-to-one disparity?
And besides, as the Dreaded Jim likes to say, whites are wolves to whites. We aren't united, and we won't be united. Even when we're 5% or less of the American population.
I said S Africa that is only 9-1. And I specified united and the current moment BS.
We also do have numeracy examples of 100 winning.
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