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 -
You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that America is a break from "Western Civilization", I'm arguing that "Western Civilization" is too broad a concept to consider as the basis for nationhood, as is evidenced by the fact that America's founders certainly didn't see it that way (they were arguing for liberal principles, not that the colonies were a separate nation from Britain), and to the extent that some of them did view it as a nation, their conception of that nation was limited to exclude most Europeans. In any event, it still doesn't account for why the alt-right excludes Jews, despite them being as Western as anyone else on the list.
The alt-right sees jews as adversaries, and responsible for harming the country / going against what they think Western civilization should be.
For example, regarding foreign policy:
Skittish Jew Dweeb Blinken Says “Viscerally, Most Americans Don’t Like a Big Country Bullying Another”
[...]
Here's a compilation of reactions to a fundraiser for the ADL, an organization promoting antisemitism:
Fundamentally, the alt-righters see the ADL and other groups as opposed to their interests.
More options
Context Copy link
Your argument, read over several posts, seems to be that where we "draw the line" on who assimilates into the American nation is largely arbitrary and has changed over the centuries. In support of this point you mention the different immigrant groups people have complained about over the years, which, of course, has included many different sorts of non-Anglo-Saxon white people. And you accurately mention that the origins of American civilization are specifically English and Northwestern European Protestant, not Italian, Hungarian, Polish, etc.
Where I disagree with you is that "Western Civilization," i.e. European origin, is too broad of a concept for the basis of nationhood, or that the conception of that nation truly excluded most Europeans. In 1790 Congress restricted naturalization to white people, not to "English and Dutch and Scottish Protestant liberals" or "Anglo-Saxons." Similar naturalization restrictions continued until well within living memory--even when the laws favored Northwestern Europeans after 1924, the other allowed groups were still Europeans, even if Southern and Eastern Europeans were considered less desirable Europeans. Non-Westerners were not allowed at all! Here's how the Supreme Court thought of the question in 1923 when debating the naturalization of an Indian man:
In the US, there was a historically-recognized kinship between the many different types of people who made up "Western Civilization," and rather than being too broad, this concept was successfully used to create nationhood.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link