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 -
Nobody in S America could ever convince me that Democracy is better than Fascism. You see huge swaths of Brazil vote on ethnic lines. Brazil at this point probably at a minimum needs to be broken into different countries. I don’t see why White Europeans should be governed by a corrupt commie because a bunch of negros voted for it.
In trading sometimes you are better lucky than good. I bought some Brazilian stuff after prediction markets were good for Bolsonaro but before the first round and I’m quite happy today that I dumped them on the big rip after the first round. Now everything I bought is 10% lower than my first buy and I’m wandering if Brazil is cheap enough to buy even with Lulu.
What you seem to mean by this sentence is "Nobody in S America could ever convince me that democracy is better than fascism that favors my group".
You wouldn't be happy with fascism that favors your opponents.
This is an imprecise description of the situation. White Brazilians are not even close to a monolithic political block. Whites do lean Bolsonaro over Lula, but it's more like a 60-40 split, not something like 90-10.
Anyway, I think that fascism is the inferior solution to the problem. The superior solution is some kind of secession. Solves the problem, without creating the new problem of living in a fascist shithole.
I'm pretty sure I'd be better off under fascism that favors East-Asians over current European democracy.
The closest thing we've had to East-Asian supremacist fascism didn't go too well for those under its boot.
How's that "the closest thing"?
A militaristic, nationalistic dictatorship in the 1930s that rejected liberalism in favour of extreme statism and corporatism, suppressed alternative ideologies, promoted traditional values, conquered and brutalised its neighbours and allied with explicitly fascist regimes in Europe.
Japan's racial ideology was slightly different, in that it didn't want to exterminate the Chinese (like Germany wanted to exterminate the Jews and Slavs), just rule over them. And it didn't have a single leader like Mussolini/Hitler and instead had the Emporer as a figurehead with power being held by competing military factions. But based on the many similarities I think it's reasonable to call Imperial Japan the closest thing to East-Asian supremacist fascism. Can you think of another regime that would be closer?
Like others in the thread pointed out, how does China not apply under the very criteria you outlined?
Why don't you just make the positive case for why it is a better example than just asking "Why does China not apply?"
Others have already made the case, but a "nationalistic dictatorship that rejected liberalism in favour of extreme statism and corporatism, suppressed alternative ideologies, promoted traditional values" seems to fit rather well, or am I mistaken?
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