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.
I don't think I need to be a "right-winger" or "base my ideas on moronic progressive polemics about race" to notice a thing that is happening.
Though perhaps not quite as "black-pilled" as they are, my feelings mirror those of @FCfromSSC. What good is "Shared civilization, culture, blood" to me when weighed against having to share a space with people who actively wants me, my family, and everyone who shares my cultural beliefs dead? Is it really even a shared civilization or culture at that point?
Those are the questions that I am trying to get at when I ask whether someone of European descent who votes for a progressive is really "white"?
Simon Bolivar decided that to secure the independence of Venezuela, he would order the execution of any Spaniard or Canarian who was not actively helping the rebels, whereas any criollo, even a collaborator with the Spanish, would be spared from harm. He correctly thought that whether one was a peninsulare or a South American was more important to the conflict he was fighting than the specific issue of who had been on what side in the first part of the Venezuelan war of independence. These people were actually killing each other at scale too, not just talking tough online. I'm clearly not going to talk you out of hating left-wingers and that's not really even my intention, but that doesn't change the fact that they undeniably share a civilization, culture, and blood with you.
Do you not have a single liberal family member? I just don't see how people can see someone who looks, talks, and behaves like their annoying aunt at thanksgiving and decide they are equivalent to a foreigner in Dearborn who supports Al-Qaeda.
Whether someone is white or not is a biological fact. You're welcome to decide that some whites are your enemy but that doesn't make them somehow not white.
What you are describing above was Bolivar’s “War to the Death”. That was a policy of the failed second Venezuelan republic, which principally failed since they were unable to get the mixed race Venezuelans on their side and winded up getting overrun by murder cowboys. The mestizos and pardos figured criollo rule would be more intrusive that distant peninsular rule.
The third republic, the one that succeeded in securing independence from Spain, avoided earlier atrocities and intentionally tried to get all the inhabitants of Venezuela, including peninsulares, on their side. They intentionally flipped the support of pardos and mestizos and made racial equality a part of their platform.
Ultimately, the lesson of Venezuela, and you have similar stories in the rest of LATAM, is that your friends are those who act as your friends and your enemies are those who act as your enemies. Alliances shift even if immutable characteristics don’t.
I think the core issue with White Nationalism is that it doesn’t map on the lived experience friend/enemy distinction of most people. For a white red triber, the Latino who goes to his church and is his coworker is practically far more his brother than a white blue triber sneering at him. The same is true vice versa for the white blue triber and his East colleague. While immigrant groups differ, Somalis are not Mexicans, it seems one should determine friend/enemy based on the actions of the person, not the race.
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