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 feel like this is an underappreciated point. I am under the impression that, within living memory, a great deal of the states of affairs dissident-right-types would like to return to obtained (in the US at least). Within living memory we had strong restrictions on immigration. Women and racial minorities were legally subordinate to white men. LGBT individuals were firmly in the closet across most of the country.
We transitioned from that state of affairs to the current one somehow. Even assuming we could get back to that state of affairs, what is going to prevent society from going through the same process again? Are women and racial minorities and LGBT people just going to accept their subordination this time? Are sympathetic white men going to somehow be prevented from gaining power? Of the 535 members of the 88th Congress, the one that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a whole 4 were black and 14 were women, after all. Most of the people wielding political power to the benefit of women, minorities, LGBT people, whoever are straight white cis men!
What kind of “subordination” do you have in mind? What specific policies are being advocated that you find objectionable?
I am under the impression DR types are generally in favor of state-backed discrimination against racial minorities and LGBT individuals (ala Jim Crow laws). As well as in favor of policies restricting women's ability to participate in society and politics as equals to men.
There's a very wide diversity of viewpoints in the DR. Claims made by one person may not be valid for another.
The DR is in favor of racially homogeneous societies. There shouldn't be any racial minorities around to discriminate against in the first place, because they should be living somewhere else, among their own people where they can be governed by laws of their own making.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some influential figures in the DR who supported this. But in general the DR doesn't spend too much time talking about women's issues, because they're viewed as secondary to racial issues. More of a day 2 item than a day 1 item.
For what it's worth, one of the leaders of the UK group Patriotic Alternative is a woman, and the National Justice Party's official platform summary says nothing about women. So they're not exactly frothing at the mouth to put women in chains or anything.
So, what are the implications of this for racial minorities that live in a society? Hard to see how one goes from a racially diverse society to a racially homogenous one in a way that does not entail the subordination of minority races.
It's worth nothing. As long as there has been a movement for women's equality there have been women arguing for their own political and social subordination. The anti-suffragettes existed.
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