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 -
He was clearly provoked (but not racially), and probably a little tipsy.: "Henry Nowak had had a few beers (still under the legal limit), saw the Sikh man, Vickrum Digwa, pulled out his phone and started recording, and called out to him a few times "Are you a bad man?""
So I think Nowak was a little obnoxious (though I'm willing to overlook that given the murder)
Echoing @Corvos - other than the "stupid" bit - yes, and that's a good thing! In a functional civilisation "tribal savages" should be excluded, executed or imprisoned. People should be free to walk the streets at night, and they should be free to speak to other people they encounter on the street (if the other person is offended, they can be verbally offensive right back to them, ignore them, or just leave the situation) - it would be very bad if the lesson (white) people take away from this is that they should give extra respect and deference to (brown) violent thugs, lest they get Nowaked.
This logic seems to be part of a more general pattern of coping regarding slipping standards:
They imply that the old state of affairs was in some sense fake, and the new (worse) situation is somehow more authentic, or real. Living in a world where you wouldn't have to worry about getting stabbed by some criminal if you got a little tipsy and made an ass of yourself, and then bleed to death in handcuffs due to "two-tier" (i.e. anti-White racist) policing? That's a "bubble", "boring", "basic", ...
The new state of affairs is "real", "enriched" and "vibrant". As if the England of the early 1900s (sans rape gangs, two-tier policing, etc) was some computer simulation broadcast on VR headsets, whilst only the non-European peoples lived life in the real physical world.
What purpose does being able to coexist with "tribal savages" serve? Why is it a bad thing to not be able to live with them? It seems there is no limiting principle to prevent this logic being applied to literally anything that erodes civilisation. How coddled the British are, that they live in brick houses instead of huts like Australian Aborigines. What a bunch of namby-pamby morons - does the modal British person even know how to make a hut?
I'm not sure I would put myself in this category. I think I disagree with the overall idea about how we should organize society around quokka-like behavior. My ideas on this topic are still a bit protean. But they are influenced by FromSCC's stance on rule-based systems being very vulnerable to exploitation. But I'll give it a go.
It seems to me that this rule: "Personal Violence is verboten" is very vulnerable to exploitation by smug assholes who's verbal intelligence allows them to insult, provoke, coordinate violence and other behaviors. They seem to take for granted that this rule exists, and it allows them to succeed at the expense of everyone else. That smacks as unfairness to me. The problem is that rule, is not natural. It only exists due to a strong centralized authority that will "Swing it's dick around". Now the motte/Chesterton's fence for this rule, is that in tries to prevent the interpersonal violence. The anti-violence norm is one of the pillars of mass society. But it is not a natural equilibrium because it's missing the other side of interpersonal violence.
A society needs more than a “no hitting” rule. It also needs a serious norm against provocation without accountability. Otherwise, the society privileges people whose aggression is deniable, verbal, procedural, or reputational. The thug says, “I’ll beat you.” The civilized predator says, “I’ll make everyone hate you, destroy your reputation, get you fired, humiliate you in public, bait you into a reaction, then appeal to the rules when you snap."
This is the cancel culture people claim to hate. It comes across as masculine vs feminine norms in society. We seemed to be in a phase of punishing the masculine and supporting the feminine. I don't think a society can survive without balancing these norms.
And while a lot of this idea is prescriptive, I think a large thrust is actually also descriptive. I think many lay people just intuitively grasp this idea. They grasp that if you verbally start shit out at a bar in the sticks, it is expected that you are going to get beat unless you can back it up with physical might. It's only in more urban, high-class, environments that people seem to not grasp this natural reality.
US law/precedent has the concept of 'fighting words,' that can legitimize a physical response. But I think that in societies (also the US) this is mostly just handled informally by the people themselves, police and the legal system, where seeking legal remedy for somewhat proportional responses is discouraged. I think that the feminization of society that you perceive is in large part a cultural phenomenon that extends far beyond the legal system.
However, this feminization only affects part of society, while another part is moving in the other direction, due to immigration, creating the quokka vs honey badger dynamic.
I also think that the legal system can only gradually change norms for the better, and thus cannot resolve this, although it can greatly accelerate the downfall. Modern progressives seem to believe that behavior comes from the environment and that transplanting people to the West immediately makes them adopt norms and values that are almost the same as the natives, and to the extent that this doesn't happen, it is caused by racisms and thus is the faults of the natives. So their solution is to beat the natives until
morale improvesimmigrants start behaving better. This just further encourages the quokkas and honey badgers to stick to their behavior, although the natives obviously have little reason to accept this state of affairs.More options
Context Copy link
Ok, I see what you're saying. I guess I see things from a different angle - I think the root cause of the serious problems in society are the overtly violent thugs. And the badness caused by them is so bad the civilised predators aren't worth worrying about while there are violent thugs.
I think it's better if we just stick to the simpler "no hitting" rule, and accept that there may be cases where someone will be able to bait an otherwise decent person into becoming violent - otherwise a lot of bad stuff could be argued as justified under some sort of "provocation".
Like, I exist in the sort of environment where actual violent thugs are non-existent, but there are sometimes these sorts of "civilised predators". And it's just much nicer this way than living "in the sticks" or something - not being able to punch an obnoxious person in the face (or even be verbally rude or obscene to them) is a tradeoff I'm willing to make to maintain such a relatively nice environment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link