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.
Seems like a Third World entry into First World identity politics. Similar to Mamdani or Barrack Obama.
Third Worlders like big, blocky obvious things with signs on them. Like centralized organizations with logos, leaders and memberships, uniforms and codes of conduct.
First Worlders scoff at those kind of gaudy displays or at best tacitly tolerate them from the sidelines if their interest happens to align. They like small and safe things like associating themselves with their high status employment. Or practically invisible things, like 'personal beliefs' that's functionally lockstep with an ethereal consensus that every 'good person' knows. And anyone that doesn't know automatically signals that they are on the outside of being a 'good person'. But you can't call that anything. Then you're committing a faux pas and showing that you don't know. Because whatever you call it, that's not what it is, actually.
For a lot of First Worlders the idea that their club isn't all that invisible is a sort of social attack. Like being described as 'someone from Williamsburg'. They recoil at every term and label. Liberal, Progressive, Leftist, SJW, Woke, and whatever comes next. So in a similar vein, associating Abdul El-Sayed with the Muslim Brotherhood is an attack. He's just a Doctor doing his best to do good for the people, actually. Any application of an ulterior motive based on ethnic identity or any collectively biological determination is just racist Islamophobia in the same way that saying conservative jews only really care about zionism is antisemitic. Even if it's true for ~95% of them.
I'm not sure when the First World will stop playing this game of pretend. Maybe when everyone smart enough to play is dead. Or the amount of those too dumb to play outnumber those who aren't to such an extent that the complex social dance loses all relevance. But make no mistake, that is the game most people here are playing. So when you break rank for Abdul and friends but not the entire thing, you are validating the assertions that this is just Islamophobia. Either it's ethnic motivation or it's not. You don't get to pick and choose who it applies to.
I'm confused. "SJW" and "woke" have certainly come to be seen as insults, and "liberal" is a vexed term because it's used on the Left as a slur for milquetoast center-leftists, but I have never recoiled at being called a leftist, or encountered anyone who did. (Nor "progressive" for that matter. I suppose particularly theory-brained radical leftists might deem the term problematic because the notion of Progress itself is a white supremacist something something, but I'm reconstructing that and I've certainly seen plenty of Blues identifying as such without a qualm.)
As a centrist (not a radical leftist), I somewhat agree with this framing, actually: much evil has been done in the name of "progress" in recent history, and self-declared progressives always seem to lack the humility to consider they might be contributing to it, despite observing these outcomes regularly.
You think the movements that brought you “white guilt” and “no ethical consumption under capitalism” don’t consider that possibility?
i think they are, like most people, constitutionally incapable of seeing the logs in their own eyes, and see no possible downsides to what they see as progress.
if such a downside becomes apparent (like BLM's reversal on bodycams), suddenly they've always been at war with Eastasia.
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