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 -
I've seen Richard Spencer consistently echo your exact concerns and counter-signal conservatives for chewing on a bone that doesn't really matter while they remain blind to the bigger picture. There's truth to that, I think it's fair to say that the conservatives are blind to the bigger picture, but I also think they are identifying something that is real when they describe "grooming." Does it fit the dictionary definition? Maybe, maybe not, but they are getting at something real.
I have also seen DR figures like you describe though. It falls along similar lines as the Klaus Schwab debate in the DR. Some on the DR pushed hard on the Schwab-posting since it was more adjacent to mainstream rhetoric and served as a potential gateway for conservatives whereas others opposed it for the simple fact that it isn't true, so you shouldn't sacrifice your credibility by pushing rhetoric that is fundamentally untrue.
I personally opposed the Klaus Schwab narrative because I didn't think it was getting at something real, but I will support the conservative rhetoric on this issue because I do think they are picking up on something real and opposing it in a way that may turn out to be effective.
I think your concerns are valid though, I am explaining why I fall on the side on supporting conservatives if they are picking up on something real.
It's the whole status optimization thing. What views optimize for a high-value/SES audience. Being avowedly anti-Klaus signals lower status. The high status view is to push back against the populist, knee-jerk reaction against him... taking a middle ground that is critical of the WEF and Klaus yet doesn't devolve into low-status/low-information populism. I saw a similar triangulation play out in early 2021 with the Covid vaccine, in which the high-status view was to oppose the lockdown/masks but support vaccines. Or, in 2022, downplay vaccine deaths, but criticize Pfizer and Biden and the media.
Yes, if you seek status validation and approval from your enemies on the left, their preferred views for you will always be the ones in which you lose nobly. The question is, why are you doing that and playing that game in the first place?
If you are more concerned about keeping high status and looking good than winning, you are basically just a useful idiot. This is always the downfall of boomercons and establishment cons, because they ultimately serve two masters, where their leftist counterparts do not.
Keeping high status and looking good lead to winning, unless you're in a purely physical contest, which the Culture War is not.
Looking good in the eyes of your enemies, however, is not helpful, unless it's purely a ruse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link