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 -
British RAF describes applicants as "useless white male pilots" in leaked emails.
In a bid to increase its diversity, an organized and systematic discrimination of white men was implemented. Leaked emails from RAF staff include vehemently racist and sexist remarks, reports have revealed.
Under a subject line entitled: "BOARDING PROFILE", a squadron leader wrote:
The emails date back to 2020. But even before then there had been a focused anti-white anti-male effort to discriminate against white men in a bid to get women and browns into service. The full article linked above gives further account to the full extent of the conspiracy that kept multiple white men applicants out of service and further discriminated against those that managed to enter. In contrast with women and browns who were fast tracked through the process.
As is noted in the article, the conspiracy was temporarily halted as Group Captain Elizabeth Nicholl resigned from her post in protest to what she thought were unlawful hiring practices back in 2022. Voicing disagreement with Air Vice-Marshal Maria Byford, the RAF's head of recruitment. The row led the RAF to claim that no discrimination was taking place, as a Ministry of Defense inquiry was launched into the nature of Nicholl's resignation.
And at the time the evidence for 'strict' discrimination was lacking. As then leaked emails only noted anti-white sentiment in propaganda creation:
Nicholl's replacement, Group Captain Dole, saw no issue with furthering the conspiracy of active anti-white discrimination and went on to be awarded an OBE in the 2022 New Years Honours List. As the RAF proudly met its target of 20% women, 10% browns. Thankfully a part of the racist and discriminatory process by which the goal was reached is now out in the open.
Contrasting this anti-white conspiracy with last years report that China was "luring" UK pilots to train its pilots, what exactly does a white person owe a state that actively discriminates against them?
Maybe ask these guys?
Why? China is the Nazis now? I don't get it.
If I'm wronged by someone I don't particularly care to modulate my response to what some Japanese megacucks did in the 1940's. Should I? To turn the ingroup/outgroup distinctions on their head a little: How far should jews have submitted themselves to the Third Reich? Does it reflect as a good or a bad on the character of the jewish people who allegedly sold their fellow jews out to nazis?
I know it is probably a waste of time to engage with someone who uses such terms, but I would like to suggest the possibility that real men undertake the hard work of trying to get those with power to live up to their ideals. It is children who respond by running away, be it to China or elsewhere, or who take the easy road of engaging in violence. Martin Luther King was a man; Huey Newton was a child. And, not uncoincidentally, King was highly effective, while Newton was counterproductive.
Note that I didn't say that real men are always successful in their endeavors. I merely mentioned that MLK was more successful than those who used violence (though as it happens there seems to be evidence that nonviolent resistance campaigns tend to be more successful than violent ones). And it certainly seems unlikely that a violent campaign would have achieved King's goals in Chicago.
But, I really was not making a claim about success rates at all. I was making a normative claim that real men undertake the hard work usually necessary (but not sufficient !) to create social change. Yes, that was a generalization, but I believe it to be an valid one, especially relative to OP's "megacuck" reference.
PS: Re the signatories of the Declaration of Independence, note that it was a declaration of independence, not a declaration of war, and it was precisely framed as an effort to convince Great Britain to live up to its ideas. I would also note that the American Revolution, like the other revolutions in the Americas, was less about social change than about preserving or extending the power of local elites vis-a-vis elites in the metropole.
But, surely that is the context for this discussion, is it not?
Didn't most of the successes of the Civil Rights Movement precede the emergence of young black men open-carrying in the streets? The Black Panthers were formed in 1966, for example. Stokely Carmichael replaced John Lewis as head of SNCC in the same year.
Well, I was really contrasting them with those who use violence for political ends. And, I initially suggested them as people who addressed the question ostensibly posed by OP re duty to a society that discrimates against you. It was only after the claim that they were "cucks" that I compared them with other "cucks" like MLK.
As I understand it, leaders of the Japanese American community pushed the government to allow Nisei to volunteer for the military, while simultaneously pushing for more equal treatment. And of course civil rights leaders pointed to military service by African Americans as a reason for ending discrimination. So I don’t know that they are all that different.
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