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 -
Right, but using "men" as your outgroup is ridiculous, no? Like, we are talking about literally half the population here, including the speaker himself.
I understand that there is political power in uniting behind a common course, and that there is utility in naming a smaller but still decently big group (immigrants, jews, roma, etc.) that you can blame for all your problems. But the fact that it is possible to just blame "men" is wild. Even wilder that so many men men go along with it. The same "bigots who think all men are racist patriarchal scum" will absolutely turn on him the moment it becomes politically opportune to do so.
From what perspective? On an individual basis this police chief gets net positive brownie points for bashing men as a group. Feminists and their Leftist allies eat it up, most men don't care, and then men who do care aren't organized enough to do anything about it.
From a broader perspective, it's probably not the best idea politically. To illustrate, in the last election cycle, the Democrats desperately needed to court male voters, but from an institutional perspective it was difficult if not impossible. All they could come up with was tone-deaf, insulting ads. Being perceived as the political party that hates men (and hates white people) is a huge albatross around the neck of the Democrats, one which causes them a lot of problems notwithstanding the gerrymandering, the importation of millions of third-worlders, the election shenanigans, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't it just as wild to blame white people in a country where they have a majority or plurality? Yet the enemy does it all the time.
Is this not just the success recipe of Christianity? The modal pastor constantly thunders against fornicators (presumably a good majority of their audience, per the strict definition) and sinners (everyone in their audience).
It turns out "you and I, we are both bad, but I am superior to you because I at least acknowledge it" is actually an appealing meme. Perhaps it allows those who have lingering feelings that they are bad recover a sense of self-worth without having to repress those feelings, or perhaps being able to tell someone else "you are bad" feels so good that it's worth acknowledging the "I am bad" for.
This is not my experience. Most preach directly on the issue less than people assume (for good or ill), and when they do I usually wouldn't describe it as thundering – precisely because they know that's not what folks in their congregations usually need.
The closest I have seen to this are some youth pastors. When you are teaching a consistent age group, there is always a new cohort of kids that needs to be firmly reminded to keep its pants on. And that message is usually pretty empathetic, because they know how hard it is.
I guess this could be described as thundering sometimes, as the law side of law and gospel. And "whiteness" is often described as something that can be repented of. So the analogy sort of works here. But without Jesus to bear anyone's sins, it's more of a racial Pelagianism.
More options
Context Copy link
Christianity provides a path to redemption. "men bad" rhetoric does not. Putting down other men does not make me a better person in the eyes of the feminist,as it is me being a man that is the problem.
Sure it does, be a good male ally, don’t take up space, defer to women, acknowledge your privilege, pay for your sins, accept any abuse hurtled at you as remuneration for your sin.
Its all very Christian in nature.
None of that will cause the feminists to view me as any less tainted. In Christianity, I can be forgiven for doing evil deeds, and after a long period of redemption, people will see me as good and I can eventually be accepted by the group. For feminists, the fact that I am a male makes me part of the oppressor group, and no matter what I do to distance myself, I will always be an outsider. No matter how good I am, I will never be forgiven for the sins of men.
More options
Context Copy link
None of that actually gives you an honorable place in the feminist or progressive movement, just more derision. What you actually need to do is score wins for the tribe in the public arena, then they'll let you do the creepiest sexist shit you can think of, and will even sweep it under the rug for you.
It's actually as anti-Christian as anything can be.
It’s a path to redemption not a path to place of honor. Unless you would claim that Christianity honors equality all sinners who have joined in following Christ. But considering the hierarchical nature of most churches I think thats a lot to swallow
Also, creepy megachurch pastors? Pedo Priests? Allowing people in power to abuse that power is classic human dynamics. Cast not the first stone unless ye are free from sin.
I had a similar tinge of a feeling when I watched Tucker Carlson's interview with Nick Fuentes and he said to him that, "According to Christianity... there's no such thing as blood guilt." I paused for a moment and thought "Has this guy even read his Bible at all?" The Bible is even more extreme on the attitude of blood guilt than North Korea is... The entire doctrine of Original Sin and generational curses going back to the Book of Genesis is wholly predicated on the foundation that our sins of today were earned based upon the actions of our forebearers. And the New Testament never abrogated this logic. We are all equal in Christ Jesus, if you're a Christian. If you're not, and you're damned, there's no salvation for you in the out-group.
More options
Context Copy link
By "place of honor" I mean a place where you're a member of community in good standing. In Christianity that's going to church and confessing (+possibly making amends, depending on the nature of your sin), that's the "path to redemption", and if you're on it, no one will bother you unless you start bothering others.
They exist, but their existence was overblown compared to literally any other human institution.
I'm not talking about abuses of power. I'm talking about what the given worldview sees as a justified use of power.
I mean if “member in good standing with community” is your barometer then absolutely what i said applies to prog spaces. I exist in prog spaces and the avg white man is absolutely accepted as long as they mutter the shibboleths.
If anything they don’t really require you to believe them so much as you don’t cause waves or have some plausible deniability.
Now the infighting you are alluding to is among the leadership, the narcissists, the sociopaths. Aka not normal folks. And yes to have power requires special circumstances in the memeplex, but hereditary or ideological purity as a metric of power inside a movement is not unique.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'll observe that the history of Christendom has no shortage of examples of both types of this behavior here: it's not like rank hypocrisy is a modern invention.
The difference being that Christianity does have a place of honor for you, even if you're not a champion smiting the infidels. For the progressives it's the only route to honor and glory, and it will only last for as long as you're useful to them. It's very pagan, and I feel like that's insulting to vast swathes of pagans.
The wokes are in the Proselytizing phase of their religion, akin to islam. Christianity had that phase but is post-Proselytizing now
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
Well yes. I think the western countries in generally lack a national identity that the citizens can get behind. This only works due to a lack of identification with the group that these people are criticizing. Still, I would have expected some general immune response when a decent person is being lumped in with criminals and racist. "How dare you group me with those people!" seems much more reasonable than "You are correct, let me apologize for the actions of people I never even met."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There isn't a veto on beliefs for being ridiculous or self defeating. The people who venerated Mangos during the cultural revolution are just like you and me. And Germans aren't exactly unfamiliar with silly radicalism turned mad.
The fact that these beliefs are insane is scary precisely because that doesn't mean people won't act on the insanity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link