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 opened TheHill.com this morning and see that the Michigan Democratic Senate primary is too close to call and high drama as far as summer politics go.
On one side we have Abdul, a progressive Democrat middle Eastern man. On the other hand, we have Stevens a white liberal affluent woman - described as a “centrist Democrat”, mentored by Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. A real “battle for the Democratic Party”.
My politics have be quite odd for a while now. Historically I voted republiclan and came of age in the George W years. About 10 years ago I switched registration to non affliliated and would describe my politics as MAGA (until MAGA was redefined to being pro-Israel movement). My tongue in check response on politics would be to sometimes describe myself as a Francoist or Facist fellow traveler.
Back to Michigan, I was thinking to myself “gun to my head” who would I prefer? The middle eastern Muslim progressive or white woman establishment Dem. I reviewed their Wiki policy positions and quite easily decided I’d prefer Abdul. Stevens is so odious to me that it wasn’t even close. What’s a bigger threat? A dem that publicly calls their regular trips to Israel transformative? Or a Muslim that wants to abolish ICE? Both are big problems. Stevens is a big “public health” nut so that’s pretty much puts two enormous Xs next to her name for me. Abdul is anti monopoly and these days it’s hard for me to disagree that there are some major problems with the corporate class (despite me being a part of it).
It was a fun little thought experiment. What do you all make of it? For those that are generally against the progressive project, what’s the lesser evil? For those that are for it, who do you trust?
Edit:Abdul won.
You want my thoughts?
My thoughts are that allying yourself with the enemies of western civilization to gain a marginal advantage in an intra-tribal squabble isn't the brilliant flex that you and @hydroacetylene seem to think it is and that anyone remotely familiar with the last decade of US political history ought to recognize the obvious failure mode.
Kolomogrov complicity is still complicity.
Does it seem to you that Muslim immigrants are more an enemy of western civilization than Blue Tribe progressives?
Obviously. "Blue tribe progressives" are white people, which is to say they are part of Western civilization. Muslim immigrants aren't. This idea that they are somehow equal amounts to gaslighting. I don't want to live around Muslim immigrants (a few countries excepted), I'm fine if my neighbor is a Democrat.
Is it Obvious? I'm not convinced that it is.
If we take the intesectionalist's characterization of "whiteness" as something pervasive and systemic that must be dismantled (see the infamous "Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness in the United States" graphic) than whiteness isn't about race, it is about culture, specifically Western Culture. This is why Blue tribe progressives feel comfortable accusing Tuskegee University of perpetuating colonialism and white-supremacy for banning Crocs and requiring 1st year students to wear a shirt and tie, and describing men like Clarence Thomas, and Michael Jordan as race-traitors for essentially being southern and conservative.
Point being that if we accept that if an individual of African descent who votes for a conservative "aint Black" than it stands to reason that individuals of European descent who vote for progressive candidates are not really "white", and I feel like the current trajectory of UK politics and European politics more generally would seem to bear this supposition out.
Since when do right-wingers base their own ideas on moronic progressive polemics about race? I can't take this post seriously, there is no way that you agree with the Smithsonian's or Joe Biden's ideas about who is white or black.
A white person can, in fact, hate other white people because they are white, with this hatred being their method of insulating themselves from such hate. This is in fact a moronic progressive idea about race, often inculcated through polemic, but that observably does not stop many of them from committing fully to their ideology.
Recognizing that this is, in fact, how they think, and that their thinking this way does, in fact, have serious consequences in the real world is not "basing one's own ideas on moronic progressive polemics about race". Nor is handwaving the beliefs they observably coordinate large-scale political action around as some sort of cutesy, irrelevant affectation a wise approach for dealing with reality. It may be stupid, but they really mean it, and they will smash an unlimited number of valuables trying to make two and two make five.
I think there are black people (or brown people, or Muslim people) with whom I can meaningfully cooperate in some circumstances. I think there are white people with whom I cannot meaningfully cooperate in some, perhaps even most circumstances. Does this seem implausible to you? Do you genuinely believe that racial conflict is the only form of conflict that really exists?
I would rather live in a white, Western European, country with views diametrically opposed to my own than a non-white one that agrees with me on a bunch of stuff. So would virtually everyone reading this post! Are you going to tell me you would rather live in Uganda (85% Christian, healthy national pride) or Guatemala (87% Christian) than atheistic, leftist Denmark or Sweden?
Going back to what I actually posted, do you actually agree with Joe Biden that a black person who didn't vote for him isn't black? Or that a person who wears a shirt and tie and is on time all the time is white? Personally, I think race is biological and related to one's ancestry.
It depends on the diametrically-opposed views on the one hand, and the non-white country on the other. I'm pretty sure I'd rather live in Singapore or South Korea or Japan or even Vietnam than in East Germany or post-revolution Russia. I'm pretty sure there are some South-American countries I'd take over the combloc in full flower. There might even be some places in Africa that make the cut.
In any case, what profits choosing the white, Western European country if one of their diametrically-opposed views is on the necessity of importing infinite non-whites as fast as possible and at any cost?
No, that's stupid.
Or that a person who wears a shirt and tie and is on time all the time is white?
No, that's also stupid.
So do I. But again, so what? At no point have I denied that race or ancestry exist, only that they necessarily trump beliefs and values.
Now that I've offered simple, straightforward answers to your questions, maybe you could do the same to mine?
Do you actually think there are no black or Muslim people with whom you could meaningfully cooperate? Do you think there are no white people with whom you cannot meaningfully cooperate?
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