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 don't think zeke is suggesting you were woke, or even that you prefer woke to the pre-woke state of affairs, but that you prefer woke to the current state of affairs (because of MAGA anti-Indian sentiment)
"Islam is in diametric opposition to feminism. Therefore, it is hated by the woke"
Or less glibly, the woke have a bunch of different priorities, and sometimes they come into conflict, and they might overlook one thing for another. In this case, they would be willing to overlook Modi being right wing for India being brown.
Like with the Modi thing, that doesn't prove that the woke weren't trying to run cover for the Indians. On a group level, most normie Blacks didn't like wokeness either (especially with the whole LGBT thing), but wokeness benefitted them.
I think the woke extended less sympathy to Indians (and just brown people in general) than Black people. And I think AA in the US discriminated against Indians? (this was never made clear - everything just seemed to reference "anti-Asian" discrimination)
But at the very least, wokeness provided all non-White races an immunity from being criticised on the basis of their race. Specifically, criticisms about Indian workers being less competent but taking jobs by working for less money due to lower standards, Indians being racist, Indians being scammers, Indians being rude etc - this kind of rhetoric is just unacceptable to left wing people (much less actual wokes)
I will register disagreement to this strong characterisation on both points. But I agree there is undeniably a racial angle for wokism (this is not even denied by the woke), and whilst there isn't the same hard proof for MAGA, I think there is a racial angle there too (but at least for MAGA, "world as a zero-sum race conflict" is way too far - the VP's wife is Indian, and ACB has 2 Haitian adopted children)
Also I'll nitpick "identarian" here. I think there is a difference between being racist and being identarian - the MAGA stuff seems more like wanting to have a nice country, and being willing to think about race in service of this goal. Again I'd point to Usha and the Haitian adoptees.
But this is exactly zeke's criticism - you are doing this musing without addressing the fact that you are Indian, and how that is going to play into your feelings about the matter.
In general, I appreciate the forum culture where we focus on ideas instead of poster identities, so even if you disclose identity markers at some point you don't have to carry it with you everywhere and just state your thoughts as thoughts instead of as a White/Black/man/woman/transsexual/etc
But in a case like this, when one's [demographic marker] is so obviously tied to the issue (and [demographic marker] is unusual amongst Mottizens), and it is a subjective moral question (I don't think a poster should have to bring their own personal race into, say, a HBD writeup) and you are going mainly on vibes and what you see with your own eyes (which I am not against!)... it comes across as sort of insincere to not address it at all.
EDIT: (shortened for brevity)
More options
Context Copy link