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 -
So? Do you object to the phrase "65 million years ago, mammals replaced reptiles as the dominant land dwellers"? Or "when the last Lord Salisbury died in 1966, the line ended. A banking magnate soon replaced the Salisburys as tenants of Longleat Hall".
Do you argue that this wouldn't have been considered an entirely anodyne phrase right up until it started to be used describing a politically live issue?
I have made an observation. What is the point of debating the cause unless it is to equivocate between "it isn't happening" and "it's good that it is happening"?
My point is that it's impossible by definition to replace someone who's not gone. So "replacement" as in "the great replacement" obscures the actual causes of the original group's diminishment as rhetorically convenient.
Going from 85% white to 40% white during my lifetime is being replaced, and you're not going to make me disbelieve my own lying eyes. Your point is as dull as can be.
No one would be able to use the word "replaced" like it's something evil and vile if they didn't imply that the removal of whites to be later replaced is deliberate and done by the same actors.
So I don't ask you to disbelieve anything, I just want you to speak plainly. If you wish to have a white people (well, "heritage american") guild like they had craftsmen guilds in the past and still have unions in some areas of labor, so that the white people can go on strike whenever they want and can't be replaced with scabs, you can say so.
And more generally, if you really believe there's going to be an annihilation race war and it's going to be initiated by the non-whites I would like to see an actual outline of what you think is going to happen, because so far it looks like vague scaremongering as justification for enacting a white-initiated annihilation race war.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is why I chose my example carefully. You have a building with 200 people. They used to almost all be English. Now none of them are. We can discuss the mechanisms and consequences but that is straightforwardly "replacement" by any reasonable definition of the word. They were there. Now they are gone.
Secondly, if the reason they are gone is because they are diminishing, then what they/we need is time and space to recover from whatever factor has been depressing populations. Pandas find it difficult to breed under current conditions, but we keep trying because we like pandas and we think that places which used to have pandas should have pandas again. You don't just shrug and import 10 million (much more aggressive!) grizzlies because one bear is basically like another; that would guarantee extinction.
More options
Context Copy link
If you flip the ratios from overwhelming majority, to plurality, or even minority, that still counts as replacement, imo.
How so? The cause is a deliberate policy on the part of the elites. You're focusing on the mechanics which I consider minutia.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link