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 -
In death, Charlie Kirk reaped what he sowed.
It's the one-year anniversary of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. On his death, there were many in the Right who believed he could serve as the martyr that would finally force the Right to "get serious". This meant very different things to different people from retaliating for cancel culture, to aggressively implementing Trump's immigration agenda, to turning the US into an outright dictatorship and instituting the Day of the Rope. In the end, none of this happened since his death got bogged down in endless conspiracies.
It's no secret that the Republican party under MAGA really likes conspiracies. They let you substitute wishcasting for evidence. Kirk pushed a lot of conspiracy theories from big ones like [The 2020 election was stolen] to [Aghanistan's collapse was engineered to import D voters] to [J6 was instigated by the FBI/Antifa/BLM]. He also pushed smaller ones that are closer to simple misinformation, like implying the Covid vaccine makes you blind and paralyzed. But for Kirk, all of these conspiracies were instrumental. They all pointed in the same direction: helping the Republican party, or more specifically Trump.
But conspiracy theories have a tendency to mutate. When you let in epistemological rot like this, some of it might end up being turned against you during the course of factional infighting. That's exactly what happened in the case of Kirk's death. Sure, the official report from the mainstream media (bah!) is that he was killed by some rando named Tyler Robinson. But... isn't that just a little too convenient?
Tucker Carlson eulogized Kirk by presenting the Biblical narrative as a story powerful people in Jerusalem “sitting around eating hummus,” adding that “there’s always one guy with the bright idea, and I can just hear him say, ‘I’ve got an idea. Let me just kill him.’”
Candace Owens opened her show the day after Kirk's memorial by mocking Erica Kirk and claiming Charlie had been "betrayed" by someone within the TPUSA, either Jewish donors or Erika Kirk herself because golly gee, didn't Charlie's wife seem a little too enthused about going on camera after his death?
This seems like such a superficial take.
So if there had not been conspiracies, the 'true conservatives' could have shown themselves and done the right thing? Yeah, I'm pressing X to doubt.
If there's one thing more delusional than the Q anon phenotype that exists on the right, it's the self proclaimed elite human capital on the opposite end.
'Conspiracies' and anti-authoritarianism have always been a thing on the right. This has nothing to do with MAGA. If anything MAGA is just a symptom of how poorly America has been managed. This is what decades of American right wing political theory has lead us to. On that front I don't think there's anything less worthy of respect than a gaggle of self proclaimed kings who try to justify their right to rule through how much they despise the peasants.
If EHC was a cognizable group of people, Hanania would not be a part, nor would he be capable of discerning who qualified to be in the group.
I’ll give him the respects I think he is EHC. Also probably put myself in that group. He was a really good writer with interesting opinions. It’s how he built a following. He’s changed whose he writing too and gone down market and thinks he’s the protector of inconvenient truths.
Still a wordcell EHC but he does have talent.
Jake Paul some reason reminds me of him since I started seeing him promoting betr. He’s already rich with plenty of ways to monetize, but choosing to monetize your brand promoting gambling just feels wrong to me. Just reminds me of Hannania going down the path he is now. Feels wrong to sacrifice the truth for outrage and probably money.
I guess I accept politicians will play political games and be dishonesty and build outrage. But I just don’t see a point of reading a writer that wants to be inflammatory. I guess the media has a niche here too msnbc/fox have definitely done it. And it makes money. But I think Hannania did have actual talent so I am sad to see him go down that path.
Hannania is jealous Iago, that's all there is to it.
More options
Context Copy link
At best IMO. I suppose he is very skilled at grift identification. Which is a skill. I dont think his writing is that good, it is not like he is Alan Sokal or James Lindsey. His book Origins of Woke has a decent thesis, but not an original one, and does not really contain a true steelman of anti-wokeness anywhere in it.
The Elite Human Capital schtick is also super cringey and just odd/confused. Who are Peter Theil and JD Vance and Ted Cruz if not EHC? What about Richard Clement the best attorney of his generation? I guess they dont appeal to Hanania's EHC class because???
Well the only good explanation is actually contained in his own book (sort of). Its that EHC goes through universities (largely), which are indoctrination centers for the left, and those same civil rights laws he said created wokeness, also discriminate heavily in favor of agreeableness, which is not a right of center trait. So his new hypothesis stands in a confusing contrast to his most major work (his current magnus opus I suppose?). The problem is agreeableness and indoctrination by state-supported and regulated mandatory (basically) institutions.
He reminds me a lot of Vivek, who, despite his backers buying the primary is in jeopardy of losing his race in solidly Red Ohio because of one of the worst blundering comments in political history, that being the prom king/queen comment. These sorts of opinions by Hanania/Vivek just kind of show off their inability to understand the American right, which makes sense because they were/are newcomers to the movement, and thought they deserved leadership positions because they, by mostly chance, got large audiences for saying the right thing at the right time for a while.
But the prom comment shows why both of them are not real American right. The American right is the only large political movement in the world that likes America for its uniquely American things. Gun rights, calling losers losers (and worse), executing criminals, and yes appreciating all-rounders like prom queens/kings. Vivek and Hanania, not being culturally American dont understand this. Vivek, idiotically, thinks the prom king is some D student running back who impregnated 3 other D students. In reality (aka at my literal school and all the ones nearby) hes a 2-3 sport athlete that also finished in the top 5-10% of the class and had good interpersonal skills. Same with the prom queen: a cheerleader, an honors student (both of them basically took the same course-load as me and the valedictorian) and good looking and friendly. An American likes all those extra things on top of being a nerd. The guy who dated (and married) the prom queen was one of my best friends. They aren't dumbness like Vivek's comment's imply, they went to Big10 schools, went into competitive fields. Have big houses in nice places. I have a big house in a nice place, I wasn't Valedictorian, and didnt grind like Vivek implies we all should have. Grinding is alien to real America, and America is beating everyone else, whence grinding is probably dumb. Whence, unAmerican fake right wingers like Vivek and Hanania are probably missing the mark.
More options
Context Copy link
He did a lot of good writing before becoming a full time troll. But is he EHC? I'm not sure.
Sailor's Law of female journalism states "The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking."
And while true, this attitude is not confined to female journalists. Swap out "hotter-looking" with "higher status" and its true for male journalists too.
Hanania is not what we would call high status. He is not good looking. Women do not want him. Men do not aspire to be him. Is he even rich? Probably not. Does a group of followers look up to him? Not really.
Being EHC is not merely be good at writing, or good at math. Those are virtues, but not the only ones, and not the most important ones either. Defining EHC as high IQ is an autistic, Bay Area way of looking at things. EHC also means being a leader, being able to work towards a common goal, being kind and strong, having empathy. If I'm on a boat in the ocean with limited rations and no map, do I want Richard Hanania in my boat with me or the median suburban dad?
The people he hates are better than him in real ways, even if his IQ is higher.
Hanania is not high status, but he's definitely higher status that the vast majority of Americans. Regarding his sex life, well, he's married with children. He has a wide social circle online. I wouldn't be surprised if he could easily get laid just through his online presence and personal brand, if he wanted to. I think looks don't really matter that much when a guy has status relative to others. He's also written some short getting laid advice before that has the ring of truth. I actually don't think he would have too much trouble getting laid even if he had no fame whatsoever. He doesn't have dating app looks, but he has confidence. Regarding his wealth, well, I don't think he's rich, but he successfully makes money by writing online leveraging the personal brand that he has built, and perhaps also through his political connections. Which is a pretty cool way to make money if you don't care too much about the moral implications of writing clickbait, for example (his long-form content is actually pretty interesting, but his Twitter posts are heavy on ragebait and trolling).
I don't even like the guy, despite finding some of his writing interesting. The ragebait annoys me and I have a sense that he doesn't have a very strong sense of right and wrong. But the fact is, he's managed to achieve quite a high level of status compared to most people, and he's no incel.
More options
Context Copy link
“do I want Richard Hanania in my boat with me or the median suburban dad?“
No I don’t trust him. I trust AOC more than him because she’s honest. So if where doing gulags yes hang him. He knew better. But keep the AOC people because they made a mistake.
I wouldn’t punish a good man who just wrote what he thought was true.
I don't like feeling this way because I hate her politics, but I find AOC genuinely beautiful and charismatic. Just on a visceral level she is a very attractive person.
She's a little horse-faced, but if it's a competition on looks between her and Hanania, she beats him by a country mile every time. Even personality-wise, I'm not hugely impressed by her but she has managed to avoid the kind of self-back-patting smuggery Hanania oozes.
Hanania isn't just "not conventionally attractive in Aryan blond fashion", he has the kind of features that raise my instinctive hackles about "having children by him would result in physical and/or mental developmental problems". Probably unfair, since it's mentioned he has a wife and kids (but I've never seen anything about them), but that's how his facial features, skull shape, etc. ring my bells.
Or worse, looking like the future star of a true crime documentary: "for years, no-one suspected the quiet loner... until the shocking truth was revealed by his one slip-up in a career of depravity!"
I’ll agree that Hanania looks weird, but it’s not that bad.
More options
Context Copy link
Hanania has "sketchy merchant who betrays the protagonist because the villain offered him a child bride" physiognomy. I am surprised and kind of appalled to learn that he is married with children. I assume a mail order or green card are involved.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah he has a deeply unsettling appearance.
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
I used to hook up with a Latina tattoo artist who lived in the neighbourhood Hanania grew up in. Fifteen minutes of driving from the freeway to her house and back were enough to realize why it would give a fellow permanently crippling class anxiety.
I'd appreciate a bit of context/elaboration.
So, Oak Lawn is a sleepy, middle-class/lower-middle-class neighbourhood, the sort of place that to this day has a shopping mall, a hooters, and motels. It's right on the edge between what you can call Chicago and what you would call the burbs, and also right on the edge between the black and white South Sides (it's getting more Hispanic, hence my tinder girl, but only in recent decades). Heavily white ethnic in a way that would mean his family wouldn't be particularly out of place there. You're technically in the city, but it's about an hour to get downtown, there's nothing but the ruins of the South Side between you on 97th St and Chinatown on 22nd St, and the tony northern neighbourhoods where the rich kids grow up might as well be a world away. You're raised with middle-class aspirations, but exposed to both black urban dysfunction and the anomie of the burbs (and whatever awful stuff was going on in Hanania's family, that's not something I can psychoanalyze). His educational track also fits for a local boy done good - local community college, then a nice but unremarkable state university, then back in triumph for UChicago Law, the Chicago flagship university both half an hour and an immeasurable distance from home. I don't know Hanania, but I've known many people like this, who grew up on the outside looking in, and finally made it in, but never get over growing up so close to and yet so far away from their aspirations. The wignat stuff is what makes me pretty comfortable in this reading; I wouldn't base it just on his current writing and my knowledge of the area, but that sort of proof of deep alienation, radical desire, and emphasis on race (i.e. fervent hatred of the crappier neighbourhoods next door) offers a pretty good signal of what might be going on in his turn from race war to class war.
Calling borderline is a stretch. It's halfway to Joliet.
More options
Context Copy link
Oh, I know Oak Lawn and quite a few of their police detectives. I didnt know that was where he was from.
Ah, then you probably know far more than me. I always took an interest in the social dynamics of the South Side, but very much as an occasional outsider. Though I did go to Bridgeport cop bars fairly often during covid, because the cop bars stayed open.
I'd rate it as more southwest side than south side. Their criminals go to Bridgeview not Markham after all.
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