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 -
Any attempt at establishing sometihng like this, that ensures it can't just be taken from you when convenient, is deliberately attacked.
Maybe Russia. Most of Eastern Europe is just a few years behind the program.
I can give you a list of examples, but surely you understand that a question like "what is evil, exactly?" is a bit unreasonable?
I wasn't suggesting the OP try to set up an explicitly white nationalist town, just that it's not hard to find an almost 100% white conservative town in America. And yet as your article shows most white American conservatives aren't actually white Nationalists, the people who ran Craig Cobb out of that North Dakota town, are statistically going to be mostly Trump voters.
Which is why I asked OP about the "evil" he wants to contain. I maybe should have phrased my question a bit better. A better question maybe would have been what does he want to change about society? Because if it's wanting to be left alone as a white conservative well that's easy to enough to achieve, if you want to seize control of the culture well that's something different. And your probably right about Eastern Europe but that just adds another layer, which is that the "program" is basically the post Christian religion of white countries the only countries effectively resisting it are non white countries, especially Islamic ones. Russia is but only by repression a democratic Russia would see St. Petersburg draped in rainbow flags pretty quick. There's a lot of tension in wanting a white society not part of the current program.
It was just an example, if you tried setting up an exclusive religious community, you'd be treated largely the same way. Like I said the core issue is being able to ensure that the community stays the way you want it to be, and that the powers that be can't just come over and pull the rug from under you. I get that you can find communities that are ~100% aligned ethnically, religiously, or whatever to your liking in America, but lots of these communities have been deliberately uprooted by the state and federal government shenanigans in the past, and there's no indication the situation will change any time soon. You might say "but there are still a lot of these communities left", but I don't think reasonable to demand that people who just want to be left alone, are also told to move periodically - and that's without taking into account the fact that they'll obviously run out of places to move to at some point.
If you're reading this thread, you've surely seen the kind of things people are upset about - being extremely lenient to criminals, while being punitive toward people who defend themselves from them; using the public school system to indoctrinate children into bizarre ideologies that demand they self-flagellate for the way they are born; the medical establishment performing undisclosed gender-experiments on their children, and outright lying to ensure the parents' compliance; public schools helping to facilitate these experiments in secret from their parents... The list goes on, and I'm sure you've already seen most of these complaints.
It's not actually easy to be left alone. All the things I mentioned are imposed top-down, even on conservative localities.
You're acting like these rainbow flags are put up organically, like the English flags in the UK, and aren't put their by paid NGO mercenaries, backed by it's own apparatus of repression.
There would be no shortage of organic ones, and likely a few NGOs. The demand for Russia's tradbasedness vastly outstrips the supply, and while many Russians are not exactly the ones chafing to go "in this house we believe" if only the laws allow it, the active opposition to the LGBT flags number few, and are likely sponsored.
You don't need tradbasdness to not have rainbow flags, you need progwokenwss to have them. Even in the west, with people sympathetic to wokeness, the amount of in your face symbolism would go down by 10x, if it wasn't artificially propped up, simply because people have better shit to do.
In fact, this already happened, between when the Floydening ended and the "Kamala is for they/them" ad hit home.
More options
Context Copy link
In my estimation, Russia (at the very least St. Petersburg, the capital of Russian artsy progressives) does not lack progwokes. And unlike Western progwokes who gassed themselves out on their victory lap, there's still a lot of winning for Russian progwokes.
What's "artificially propped up"? Sure, I'll agree that near-mandatory sensitivity consulting corporations are probably the central example of artificial propping-up. In the case of a manager of a small coffee shop deciding to put up rainbow flags during June, I wouldn't agree that it's artificial. There wouldn't be specific laws against "propagandizing the LGBT community" if no one really wanted to propagandize the LGBT community. As you say, just the lack of mandating the LGBT propaganda would be enough.
LGBT is almost always unpopular among the common people because smarmy effeminate weirdos tend to be their public face. Banning 'LGBT propaganda' doesn't mean that there's lots of people eager to spread LGBT; it means that the government wants to show that it listens to the common people more than it wants to show it cares about tolerance/expanding human rights.
More options
Context Copy link
It's all the money that goes into all the orgs that put up all these flags, organize all the marches, etc.
You think this was put up by a small coffee shop?
So, as long as the money is collectively raised in any way, it's artificial? I'm just trying to determine the actual boundaries of your definition of artificial.
No. I do think 10x less than that will still be disliked by those who want to dislike it. Hell, 100x less than that.
Not "in any way", you can have fundraisers and whatnot. But taking tax money to fund the indoctrination of people and their children, into values they consider hostile, sounds pretty artificial to me. It's not even necessarily bad, per se. I support various forms of tax-funded indoctrination, but remember that the conversation was about how anti-wokeness stems only from "repression", I'm pointing out the repression it takes to promote wokeness to begin with.
If the flags were just put up by local cafe's and the like, I might dislike it, but it would hardly bother me.
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
More options
Context Copy link