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 -
Right off the bat, this is just extremely wrong. The contradiction of liberalism and HBD led to a Civil War, segregation, integration, and racial conflict that has never actually stopped, it's just changed form. Liberalism completely lost the plot on HBD, to the extent that HBD itself is radical and edgy, though true, and it is not accepted within our scientific or social institutions. Liberalism has led to a demographic replacement in the United States and Europe that is unprecedented in human history except in military conquests or war crimes. Classical liberalism in fact cannot integrate HBD, this has been proven by the fact that HBD denial became entrenched under its hegemony.
There is a niche that Hanania could have tried to fill by saying "HBD is true and it matters for policy, but classical liberalism provides the best policy taking into consideration the importance of HBD." But even he couldn't bring himself to say that, he just joined every other classical liberal in denying the importance of HBD to policy. So Hanania himself seems to think branding himself as a classical liberal means denying the importance of HBD to policy.
In my experience, the libertarian to dissident right pipeline is not motivated by people dropping concern for morals or rights, it's motivated by them realizing they have been completely duped into a sucker's game by embracing an individualist ethos while the rest of the world organizes collectively and along tribal lines, and in doing so crushes them politically and culturally. They then accept HBD and notice that all the libertarians they have known tend to be white or Jewish men, and reciting some Milton Friedman lectures is going to be unlikely to convert the masses to drop their own tribal identities. Their ideological commitment to Freedom and Liberalism in the English Tradition is just a figment of their own whiteness. They then notice that they are stopped from having any similar identity by forces which themselves heavily organize on tribal lines.
In Rationalist parlance you could say they go from mistake theorists to conflict theorists, which is not the same thing as dropping concern for morals or rights. It's when libertarians realize the claim that it's a "self-evident truth" that our rights come from God and our government is merely formed to protect them with minimal force is an outright Noble Lie. Our rights come from our government, our morals are framed by our culture.
"Caring about rights or morals", then, doesn't mean watching Milton Friedman lectures or trying to convince everyone to stop being collectivists while being crushed by the organizing power of those collectivists, it means competing for the reins of political power and cultural influence. This is understood by those who organize and identify on tribal lines, and who use that same collective group-behavior to deny white classical liberals the ability to do the same.
Your post touches on a lot of thoughts I’ve had lately. I no longer consider myself as having a political ideology anymore. Political systems to me seem to rely on time and place far more than 2005 me would have believed in let’s Democratize the Middle East and make them good people. The US of course doesn’t believe in any concept of Democracy on the world stage. It’s basically a dictatorship. We don’t let Indians and Chinese dominate decisions because there are more of them and they would. And I believe that would be a bad thing.
Running on time/place I don’t believe Russia should or could have been a Democracy for most of its history. The military threat was too great that a centralized autocracy diverting large amount of resources to military was likely their necessary form of government. Though under the American umbrella now and with nukes seems obsolete.
Democracy worked in America because we had a continent of people sharing the basically the same big cultural things. If we were say 51% Muslim and 49% Christian with the Muslims basically getting what they wanted on everything it wouldn’t work. Democracy requires that you are basically one tribe moving in one direction. And I think a certain average IQ is necessary.
The whole Democracy thing seems to break when those factors aren’t in place. It hasn’t worked in places like Syria and it seems to be failing in S. Africa.
Which perhaps the one thing I believe in is a form of true Christian Nationalism. With Christian Nationalism being the foundation of America. By this I mean a belief in human rights and values of humans that comes with being a Christian where those in power have a limiting force on oppressing the weak. A belief in a common good.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link