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 -
Your misrepresentation obscures the Left's true motivation for opposing "it's okay to be white", which they are wholly justified in doing.
Everyone agrees that "being white is better than being non-white*: the question is in how whites obtained their Privileged position. The Left does not believe that whites should be ashamed "for the color of their skin", but for the innumerable crimes they have committed against non-whites* in the 500 years since they set out from Europe to gain their globally advantageous position. If, on the contrary, whites achieved their prosperity through entirely legitimate means, or by means no worse than the global baseline, then all non-whites* ought to be deeply ashamed of just how poorly their societies compare to whites', especially after 120+ years of the end of extractive colonialism and 80+ years of independence from Western powers. Either it is okay to be white, or it is okay to be otherwise*.
*East Asians (mostly) excluded.
I think that the latter reduces to the former, in addition to baking in another problem and thus being even more objectionable.
Specifically, to get to "being white implies responsibility for all the crimes whites have committed" requires two premises:
#2 must be skin colour (or other "racial" traits, but asking people to feel guilty for having e.g. thin lips or blond hair raises 100% of the same issues), not closeness of blood relation, as for any given white criminal (e.g. a slaveowner) there usually are some "non-white" people more closely related to him (e.g. the descendants of the bastards he sired by raping his slaves) than some white people.
And #1 is a whole other can of worms which most modern Westerners find barbaric.
More options
Context Copy link
I have an extremely long schizopost brewing about this exact topic that I don't have the time to write right now, but the tldr is that this entire framing IS implicitly accepted by everyone in the modern west (right and left alike) and it IS a hubristic arrogant stifling ridiculous situation that leads to terrible outcomes and excludes all evidence and experiences to the contrary while privileging literal white supremacy to the exclusion of every instance where being white may actually be a disadvantage for example in sports or in the face of male sexual competition with more dominantly gened people. The blindness to this reality is born out of a combination of arrogance, laziness, and an unwillingness to course correct or admit mistake/defeat/obvious humiliation.
More options
Context Copy link
To echo Nwallins, I also disagree. Being a higher IQ (or otherwise talented) black is better than being white, because you get both the advantages of affirmative action and the benefits of your natural talents.
More options
Context Copy link
I disagree
More options
Context Copy link
The left could, ya know, just not play this abhorrent word games to cover up for racism, too, and they wouldn't be "misrepresented" (that is, interpreted entirely correctly but in ways they don't like, so on go the word games).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link