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 -
Nonsense. Coerced sterilisation would be a human rights violation no matter who the target was. Removing a specific racial group from America is well outside the Overton Window. And even affirmative action is generally framed in terms of helping minorities, rather than justifying it with invective against white people.
Even the examples you list aren’t as extreme as Hanania’s pseudonymous writing, though. “Decolonisation is not a metaphor” does not say “perhaps we could coercively sterilise the colonists and take our country back in a few generations,” and the authors probably aren’t secretly thinking it; note that I come from a country where giving back land is government policy. Metaphors about “whiteness” are still putatively about mindset rather than genetics, and the paper you list was by a white person, which isn’t a complete defence but it does complicate things. We don’t have to trust these people completely but it does matter that they don’t actually mirror Hanania’s pseudonym.
You might reasonably ask whether someone who had called for extremist anti-white policies that truly did mirror Hanania’s would be more easily forgiven if they repudiated their earlier stance. Probably. But I have never seen such policies advocated in the first place, and I think that extreme white supremacy is feared because it actually has a constituency. It certainly has one here on this website. OP of this thread calls it “nothing very shocking.” This person blithely refers to “implement[ing] a few eugenic policies” as a way of getting rid of a racial minority.This person thinks that Jim Crow and slavery were “sane, stable solutions to the problem of having a racial underclass.” At least that last one is getting pushback?
It remains to be seen whether this even will scuttle Hanania’s book deal. You’re right that it could, but it might not. I am not certain that it should, but I may as well admit that it scares me a little that it might not. Without the possibility of strong pushback, would Hanania have changed his mind in the first place? Even if he would have, others would not. You can see plenty of them right here.
Hanania should lose trust over this. He should lose status. I don’t think he should lose the opportunity to regain some trust, and his explanation does matter, but it’s important that he takes a hit for this. Moreover, we don’t have to trust him.
You don't think a statement like "whiteness is a disease" has these sort of implications? Even after granting the point that forced sterilization is worse than non-metaphorical decolonization or treating someone's race as a disease, the difference between one being written pseudonomously, and the other publicly in academic journals completely overrides any conclusion that could be made from the comparison you wanted to make. Like I pointed out you can openly call for murdering people based on their race, and the "paper of record" will come to your defense. Hanania could have rewritten all his old posts verbatim, replaced other races with "white" and no one criticizing him, including you, would have cared.
Hanania should have never had any trust or status, but he should not lose any over this.
With all due respect, you cannot “openly call for murder.” What you can do is sing a song that calls for murder and then pinky promise you don’t mean it literally, and then the NYT will make sure to mention all that stuff about not taking it literally.
It’s not good! In a country where white people are a racial minority, it’s reasonable to see a serious potential threat. I sincerely hope we do not see violence as a result.
To be clear, I don’t support the pejorative usage of “whiteness” to describe cultural or personal qualities. However, I am not the one making a comparison, here. I’m responding to a comparison that I was given. It is indeed tricky to compare “aimed at white people, no claims of inherent racial superiority, disturbing in potential unspoken implication but not necessarily meaning what a person’s worst fears might make of it, continues to be openly held, not given strong social sanction” with “aimed at a racial minority, claims of inherent racial superiority, explicitly terrible policy suggestions, very recently repudiated, given some social sanction and we may see more.” That’s a lot of variables!
Well, that would be what I'd call "bending over backwards". I somehow doubt that the problem with what Hanania said was the lack of musical background, and the famous "it was just irony, bro" defense.
I also don't support anything Hanania said, not just under his edgy persona, but the "respectable" one as well, but that's neither here nor there. The question is whether or not something should happen to Hanianias respectability as a result of his old posts getting discovered, and in my opinion as long as stuff like this can be published in broad daylight, I see no reason why what he posted should result in any consequences.
It's always worth being accurate about the problem. "Person calls for genocide, and when questioned about it says 'yes, we really mean genocide' and the NYT defends them" is different to "People sing a song about killing another race of people, and when questioned say they are remembering the bad old days of their oppression and do not mean it literally, and the NYT frames the story in a way that deflects condemnation."
When discussing racism on this forum, I always have to be precise about exactly what happened and what did not. Sometimes this is bullshit (e.g. these quibbles about the exact definition of "ethnic cleansing.") However, the general principle of precision over outrage is a good one, and I am certainly not going to lower my standards just because white people are the target in this instance.
Would this still be true, for you, if he didn't even disavow it? Would you use statements with overtly denied meanings or non-explicit rhetoric with uncertain but potentially disturbing implications as an excuse for allowing overtly harmful explicit policy proposals?
The former would be an example of explicitly defending a call to violence, while the latter would be an example of "bending over backwards" which is what I originally called it. Anyone can come up with story for why their call to violence is not a call to violence (unless...? wink wink), and I don't see how these stories are in any way relevant to the point. Accuracy without relevancy is just a distraction.
Yes. As an example from the other side, back on reddit we discussed a case of a black progressive woman, who got into hot water, because someone dug out an old article she wrote for her university newspaper. It was an edgy, HBD uno-reverso where she claimed that since white people are slower to develop, they're genetically inferior. My position at the time was "this was 20 years ago, who gives a shit". One day our culture might change enough that I'll change my mind on this, but at the moment I consider people who want to dig through your past a far greater danger to society than people writing racist screeds for shits and giggles when they were young.
Me personally? Maybe? When I'm having a serious conversation with someone, I speak plainly, so in that case it would be a clear no. But I do like to joke around, and I enjoy dark humor, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility.
In the comment to which I was responding, your exact phrasing was "you can openly call for murdering people based on their race, and the "paper of record" will come to your defense." Like I said, precision matters.
You can, of course, say that the explicit denial of serious intent isn't relevant; that's a judgment you're allowed to make. Personally, while I still think that "wink wink" versions of such things are very bad, I would nevertheless make the distinction. I'm not a fan of dark humour on such subjects, for example, and I think it can give cover for more serious versions, but it's not the same as openly meaning it. I don't know enough about the South African context to judge actual intent, so the best I can do is to be as factual as I can.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link