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 mean based on what? Any culture, even one that doesn’t accept immigrants will change over time. Japan today would be a culture shock to a Japanese person time-traveling from 1950. Musical tastes change (though a fair number of people consider country to be a continuation of traditional American music) which I would contend is something that conservatives have managed to conserve, alongside frontier versions of Christianity (which I see evangelical Christianity as a continuation of), traditional American cuisines and to some extent the traditional values and ethos. It’s not expressed the same way, but what conservatives believe and do can quite often be traced back to very long roots that go back quite far. I would contend that a time traveler from 1860 would recognize a lot more of modern Patriot/conservative culture than he would have modern Liberal/woke culture. But at the idea that it doesn’t count if the culture isn’t preserved in amber completely unchanged (which would probably not even be true of the Amish) to count as preservation is simply demanding too much. Conservatives don’t live as museum pieces, they live as people interacting with a real world.
Japan of the 1950's was in the throes of a Judeo-American imposed cultural revolution. I'm sure the time traveler would be shocked but not surprised that foreign occupation had left his country without its sword. I think that highlights a blind spot to the 'cultural' ideology as a whole. At any point in time can you pinpoint whatever thing is happening and say: 'see, there it is, there's our culture' with no regard for what it was before or how it got to the point it is now. I agree that a culture changes with its people and technology. But that fact does not excuse every cultural change as being a fate bound product that inertly fell from the sky.
As for your overall point I'm at a loss. We seem to have gone away from a cultural definition of work ethic and duty and instead moved towards a cultural definition of what I would call trinkets and hobbies. I don't believe you are saying that if more immigrants listened to Hank Williams that they would be more inclined to work. So I don't understand where we are going with this.
As for country music and similar 'cultural' trinkets. For me, if it's not Southern, it's not really country. I don't mean that in a sense that it has to come from a certain area. But the fact that it has to exist as something opposite whatever it is the 'North' is doing. It has to actually be 'politically' Southern. Otherwise, what even is it? Blake Shelton pseudo rapping with his coolest black friends about tractors? I find it pathetic. Why does he mention in one of his songs that 'his boys' don't listen to the Beatles but rather Coe. Shelton is a living breathing embodiment of a Yankee pop star at this point. Country music didn't grab the South just because they liked the tunes. It grabbed the South because it was Southern. It was as much a product of musical talent as it was a product of a culture war that self described conservatives have long abandoned and disavowed in favor of fortune and fame from the 'North'.
I don't think a time traveler would pretend that the US is even a country after you showed him the state of things. I mean, in the past 50 years the US has seen over 100 thousand white people murdered by black criminals. Race mixing at an all time high. Jews and catholics running the show, the Church supporting gay marriage, a former black president. And to top it all off, conservatives are more likely to support these things than not, aside from gay marriage. Conservatives certainly aren't museum pieces, but I'd have expected their will, want and tradition to lead somewhere other than where they are today. Least of all that there are conservatives that unironically proclaim that the problems with Mexicans and blacks are 'cultural' and not rooted in the fact that they don't belong in the country at all.
Alright, quick mod request. Most of this is fine, but there's a few bits that are stated as fact and really need some backing up:
I recognize you fleshed one of those out later, which I appreciate, but - "Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be." - that's pretty partisan and pretty inflammatory and needs some level of backup.
I didn't feel like I needed a lot of supporting evidence since we were talking about what the perspective of a person from the 1860's would be when coming in and taking a look at the current state of affairs. I figured that such a person would not come to very politically correct conclusions about the world after interacting with a few basic facts about it in any case.
Looking at the US supreme court, it's majority 6/9 Catholic. Looking at Bidens and his cabinet, it's jewish and Catholic with Biden himself being a Catholic. I find this sufficient to say that a person from 1860 would conclude that jews and catholics are running the show. But maybe that's my bias shining through.
The '100k is past 50 years': https://datahazard.substack.com/p/interracial-murder
The problem is that those parts are phrased as fact, not as the person's opinion, and they do require a bit of justification.
Which you've done here! I am reasonably satisfied with those answers.
Link 'em in the original post next time, if you would :)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Where I’m going with the country comment is that as I said, sometimes culture changes quite organically, and therefore it’s not enough to say “it’s different, therefore not good” is really not an argument.
I think most of the trends are generally negative, and that we do have a serious decline in both civic duty and work ethic, civic nationalism, and even education ethic. Those things can be taught, and they’re not. In fact I think this is something the Chinese are doing right. Go to any forum where Chinese are talking about China and you just don’t hear the kinds of self-flagellation that you do in Atlanticist cultures. They are taught to love China and being Chinese. But, such things can absolutely be taught. Kids don’t come out of the womb with ideas about loving their country, studying and working hard, or civic duty. In fact, you can find differences among whites in various Atlanticist countries.
I obviously don’t see race mixing itself as a problem, so the rise of race mixing in an otherwise healthy culture wouldn’t be a problem for me. The issue is the bad memes, and those come from unassimilated immigrants, the media, and the school system.
I feel like I've already answered your contentions in my previous comment. You've not provided a distinction mechanism between what constitutes 'organic' change and what's not.
I guess, in total, I just fundamentally disagree with you on where culture comes from in the first place. Culture doesn't fall from the sky. It flows forth from people and the conditions they create for themselves. I can agree that US 'nationalism' is dead in the water. But I'd argue that being a product of its people.
It's not hard to teach a Han-Chinese to love his country when it is undeniably his country with thousands of years of history where he is surrounded by people who look, talk and think like him. It's a little different when you were brought to 'your country' as a slave. It's a little different when the countries media is dominated by people who don't look like, talk like or think like you.
I think the history of the US has taught us that you can't railroad over these differences. And that the same ingroup pathologies you would seek to harness for your greater American cultural project will work against it when people see themselves as having more in common with those who look, talk and think like themselves. I mean, regardless of all else, why should anyone pledge their hard work and duty to the US and not, say, Israel, Mexico, China or Africa?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Please don't post like this. If you think something is ban-worthy, you can report it. We don't need to clutter threads with "you should be banned*," "no, you should be banned!"
More options
Context Copy link
What game are you playing? You "ask questions" about jews yourself, then delete them.
Hat tip to @fuckduck9000 for spotting what I should have earlier.
I was familiar with your earlier posting, so your sudden shift to seemingly arguing against anti-Semitism had me puzzled/suspicious.
Further investigation revealed the obvious. This user has been banned many times under many different alts. Another day, another mole whacked.
More options
Context Copy link
I suspect you may be a bad faith far righter.
Hard to tell since you set your account to private and delete your comments, but:
You posted “neutral” questions about the influence of jews etc, but your shtick was getting stale, so now you present as an opponent of the far right while still asking these inviting questions, like the OP, never defending your apparent opposition with arguments. Comments like the above ban demand and “I think these changes have been very positive on the whole” are lies.
@Amadan , forget @hanikrummihundursvin , at least it's open. This guy is the problem.
Quoting his whole comment elsewhere, in case it gets deleted(I added italics and bold):
Italics: Dishonest use/criticism of the rules.
Bold: You tried to sneak in this ‘has been lauded by the japanese government” as a justification for the other far righter’s argument. What’s ironic about it, if you are what you say you are? “Irony refers to the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of their literal meaning."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Japanese lost WW2, got nuked, and then had their constitution rewritten by a bunch of Americans.
The primary portion of the document that upended established cultural relations between the sexes in Japan was written, in part, by a jewish woman.
Far be it for me to subscribe to a theory of a single cause but the post-war era seem to have taken a drastic toll on the Japanese birthrate. Considering the revolutionary nature of the imposed constitution I'm more inclined than not to say that it has weighed the Japanese people down heavily. They had their own culture that was producing children and it was destroyed. That's not to say the old ways would have been impervious to technological change. But I think they were far more anti-fragile than the thing that replaced it.
I don't think the comment was banworthy, or even in need of a warning, but c'mon, a Jewish woman was involved in the writing of part of the new Japanese constitution, therefore it was a "Judeo-American" takeover? By this logic, anything a Jew is involved in ever is a "Judeo-" effort. Which, I know is kind of your thesis, but usually your anti-Semitic seething has at least a kernel of truthiness.
I said it was a Judeo-American imposed cultural revolution. And it wasn't just some random part. She was specifically involved with the part that, I contended, upended the established cultural relations between the sexes in Japan. Which pertained to 'women's rights'. A portion she was specifically deputized to write.
You don't need to import any socialized 'logic' into this. She, the jewish feminist, wrote the part of the Japanese constitution that pertains to 'women's rights'.
I am not sure whether to be more puzzled by "socialized" or by you putting "logic" in scare quotes.
In any case, "Jew involved, therefore it's a Judeo-American imposed cultural revolution" is a pretty weak take. If all you have to do is point at a Jewish person in any organization to make it part of the ZOG, I think that's "logic" that deserves to be in scare quotes.
Because you are socialized to deconstruct the label 'jewish' but not the label 'American'. The 'logic' only gets applied to one but not the other. 'Americans' nuked Japan. 'Jews' wrote the womens rights part of the new Japanese constitution.
It's 'Jew involved, therefor it's not just an American imposed cultural revolution'. I'm not pointing to just any jewish person. I'm pointing to the jewish feminist who wrote the part of the new Japanese constitution that pertained to 'womens rights'. Which was a very radical change from the prior cultural norms of Japan.
Oh, I see.
So wouldn't it be more accurate to call it a Judeo*-Anglo-Saxon-Scottish-American-imposed order?
* And isn't Beate Sirota's Austrian heritage also relevant?
It's almost as if you're looking at a large number of people from various backgrounds involved in the effort, and for some reason deciding that only one of those is significant. What do you not apply the logic "A Jewish woman did this" = "Jews did this" to any other group?
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
What the hell is supposed to be ban worthy about it? Some people argue for horrors like surrogacy, some people people post thinly veiled antisemitic jabs. Fight the guy or ignore him, but for the love of god spare me the Karening.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link