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 -
Well, at least two of the more prominent and intelligent voices in the online right (BAP & Yarvin) basically don’t see a path to power for the right until the current regime collapses on itself. I agree with you that I don’t think there’s much of a chance for the right to obtain power either. As academic agent says though, there’s many different factions with different goals and preferred destinations.
I think there’s 0% chance of establishing New Hyperborea, but I think there are at least a few avenues for the right to pursue that most factions would see as an improvement on the current regime, and have at least a slim but non-zero chance of working. You note that even the average red-blooded American, even those that are nominally conservative, find racism/sexism/etc. distasteful. But I think the left has shown that public opinion on a lot of these social issues is downstream of policy rather than vice versa.
So I think Richard Hanania’s idea of repealing the civil rights act, and (contrary to Hanania) actually enforcing immigration laws (deport illegal immigrants and don’t let any more in) would go a long way to accomplishing many of the online right’s shared goals. These ideas are obviously not very popular, and are opposed by basically every powerful institution in the country in addition to most normal people (which is why neither of these things will ever happen), but you could theoretically do them through underhanded but legal political lawfare, judicial rulings, executive orders and such, which the mainstream right has been able to successfully use in the case of 2A/abortion. To successfully do this I don’t think you’d actually need to “clear everyone out” down to the local librarian. You’d need republican majorities in both houses, and a president who is willing to fire the higher level heads of the federal agencies/military and install competent and loyal people in their place. Then use those agencies to actually aggressively enforce your ideology on non-governmental of sub-federal governmental entities. Over time, public opinion will follow.
Of course the problem is in getting the electoral mandate and a president who understands that it’s friend/enemy all the way down, and who is competent enough to get it done in the face of overwhelming resistance from our current regime. The only reasons to think this has more than a 0% chance to happen are that we are starting to see mainstream republican politicians who are at least trying to fight back, dissident-right political theory is seeping into the mainstream (Moldbug has been on Tucker), and as our institutions decline further maybe there’s some small chance that the stars will align and there will be an actual major conservative backlash in electoral politics.
Wouldn't deporting more than a certain fraction of illegal immigrants crash the US economy? US citizens are not going to want to do stuff like fruit picking, meat processing, restaurant kitchen work, and landscaping for the kind of money that illegal immigrants do it for.
I’m not really trying to argue for the merits of these ideas- but that they are major issues the various factions of the online right care about, mostly agree on, and are theoretically possible through normal politics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link