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 -
Can someone give me an analysis on who Abdul El-Sayed actually is as a person? He gave a weird interview where he said trans is a made up issue because your daughter has an I-Phone in her pocket so she will see dicks all the time anyway.
The first impression is he’s some sort of Muslim Brotherhood type. My second impression is pegging him as similar to brown friends I know whose parents do something science (medicine/engineering), are fairly wealthy, follow zero Muslim codes, hate white girls but probably slept with a few dozen in their twenties. All of these types are/can be fully assimilated into America. Half seem like they really do assimilate. The other half to me seem like they have a chip remaining on their shoulder that their people couldn’t build America.
My guess is he’s that type that still has a big chip on his shoulder to fully white people. So thinking things like sexualizing normies is perfectly fine for him in the same way a westerner might go to Thailand for a holiday and not view Thai’s as his people.
I'm sympathetic to Jonah Goldberg's argument in this podcast, that is, that El-Sayed wants the Democrats to be a straightforward anti-Israel party.
I don't think El-Sayed supports the full Muslim Brotherhood agenda. The social democrat positions that he holds are honest. He is not, I think, secretly an MB supporter in the sense of everything they stand for. But he is, I think, basically a middle-class western Muslim who attributes a disproportionate level of importance of Israel, and it has become organising for his thoughts in a way that it is not for other people.
His father in law is cair. His (albeit estranged) mother was MB. His father is on an organization that has questionable ties. He himself wrote a letter supporting MB.
There is a massive amount of smoke surrounding him. Don’t know why it’s crazy to think he just might be the real McCoy.
Are devout Muslims allowed to lie to non-Muslims to advance Islamic interests? A devout Christian could not for example sell a non-Christian on the benefits of trans in schools. It’s a sin to lead others to sin.
A reminder that when an Evangelical bombs a Muslim country they have to wrap the bombs in “for Democracy” and “women’s school”. Bush had to bomb Muslims for human rights and not because they were Muslims.
Taqiyya is real* and probably allowed** by Islam but is a very poor model for how people rationalize and think.
AES is almost certainly not lying smiling while twirling his mustache with his fingers crossed behind his back. (This kind of thinking actually turns off a lot of liberals from seeing what conservatives are seeing.)
AES is probably just rationalizing. Which is to say, he's a Muslim, and has a lot of sympathy for Muslims, and Muslim organizations, and extends them a lot of charity in his own mind. And he's an American, which means of course he condemns terrorism and extremism. If those identities come into conflict at all it is totally rationalized away because they can't possibly come into conflict, definitionally, a priori. His family network contains Islamic ties because Islam is normal and good, but also of course he condemns extremism because he's a loyal American, not that MB contains anything to condemn, but if they did it's unrelated to AES or his family, because it has to be. It's very simple, you must understand. You don't get it? Your reasoning must be motivated somehow, you're probably racist or bigoted, that would explain why you can't see how very simple it is.
Orwell is a cliche now but I think he was spot-on with his model of "doublethink". You simply have to hold two opposing ideas in your mind at the same time. Although in this case the two ideas don't even have to be total opposites because it's very possible to imagine someone who is both a Muslim and both an American patriot. It only becomes doublethink at the points of intersection where "faithful Muslim"*** and "loyal American" seem to conflict. ("Seem" because we know deep down that they must not.)
* Exists in official doctrine somewhere that faithful laity never read,
** And isn't necessary anyways because most Muslims and Islamic cultures are quite open about their passions and antipathies.
*** AES is probably not a faithful Muslim, he's probably the classic half-atheist half-progressive standard model.
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