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 -
This is like saying you abhor Zionism because you have non-Jewish friends. You have non-white friends, so you don't think white people should retain any ethnic identity or advocate for it in any way? How does that make sense? Do you deny any other ethnic group its ability to advocate for its own interests because you have friends outside that ethnic group? I have non-Chinese friends so I abhor Chinese nationalism I guess... Would that make sense to you, or does this sort of logic only apply for white people?
(hypothetical)
I enjoy going out to drink with hispanic and black friends. I enjoy intellectual discussions with jewish and arab friends. I benefit greatly from software and hardware developed by Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans in my country. White Nationalism means kicking them out or, at the very least, substantially reducing their social status (and therefore my social interactions with them and their ability to contribute to the economy). If otherwise ... it's not actually white nationalism or antisemitism, just White Affinity Groups or Pro-White Affirmative Action something. Why do I do this?
More options
Context Copy link
If your best friends are all average Muslim Palestinians and they find out you're a hardcore Zionist, they're very unlikely to remain your friends. If your friends are Korean and they find out you're a hardcore Japanese nationalist who rues the end of the occupation of Korea, they're very unlikely to remain your friends. If your friends are African Americans and they find out you're a wn and regular Occidental Observer commenter, it's relatively unlikely they'll remain so. The left are correct when they say that the personal is political and vice versa. If you care about your friends (which, one imagines, most people do), it's hard to advocate things that you know might hurt them in a significant way.
I have friends who are Zionists (told me his parents live "near Jerusalem", lul), I can't imagine being such an asshole by telling them they can't support Jewish identity or a Jewish state because they are friends with me (a non-Jew). If any non-Jew went to a Jewish friend and said "you can't support Zionism or any concept of a Jewish state if you want to be my friend", that person would be universally denounced as anti-Semitic by any institutional power.
If Ilhan Omar wrote an op-ed saying that while she was "friends with many progressive, anti-apartheid Jews", she "could never be friends with someone, whatever their faith, who supported Zionism because it is a racist ideology" then she would face opprobrium from the ADL, the Israeli embassy and possibly mild condemnation from Biden's office, but the remarks would ultimately be in-line with others she has already made, and she would not face actual cancellation.
In your case, though, Zionists settling in East Jerusalem likely doesn't really affect you, your family or even anyone you care about personally. A Bhutanese person who has no intention of ever leaving their mountain kingdom is similarly uninvested in whether nativists come to power in America. If you were a Palestinian from East Jerusalem, or even had very close friends who were, you'd probably have a much stronger opinion on being friends with Zionists. Most commonly proposed hardline WN policies would directly affect the lives of non-whites in the US, ie. the friends of the previous commenter.
To say that Zionist influence doesn't affect me in the United States is summarily false, it absolutely does. The behavior of Jewish organizations like the ADL wouldn't make me demand that none of my friends identify as Jewish or advocate for Jewish people. I understand that inclination and respect it, I wouldn't think to do the same thing that you do to white people who identify as white and want to advocate for white people.
The fact I have non-Jewish friends does not mean I can't sympathize with someone who identifies as Jewish and has the best interests of Jewish people at heart. The problem is that feeling is not reciprocated by people like you. You want Jewish identity to be respected but then oppose anyone who wants to advocate for White people in the same way Jews advocate for themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Rich Hollywood elites lined up to praise Parasite, German bourgeoisie was responsible for the success of Threepenny Opera. The people for whom they expressed disdain didn't seem to mind the animosity but instead sought and reveled in it.
Likewise ideologies which seeks to demonize the role ethnic Europeans as actors in history, could not have the prominence they enjoy, if they were only accepted by non-whites.
But you are correct: Palestinians, Koreans, African Americans are not like the two groups I mentioned, suggestions of alternate arrangements which would result in the diminishment of their status, cause them great offence.
This leads to: Why do some groups accept blame, mockery and disdain, but others do not?
Because those in the examples have a long cultural memory of victimhood in a way that white americans do not?
That seems kind of self serving. How well do you know American history? Most of America is not wealthy elite...
Who gets to decide who are the right kind of victims? You?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
China has nothing to do with anything, although they’re certainly welcome to keep their society mono ethnicly Han if they want to. On the other hand keeping the US majority anglo white is not going to happen with measures short of genocide or other mass population movement. I’m not sure how nonwhites are less American than whites, as you’re implying- we’ve had lots of black people and natives here since the beginning and you can decry that fact but denying their American-ness makes no sense. Likewise chinamen are not recent arrivals and often predate many of the white Americans.
Look, I’m a Cajun. I’m part of an actual ethnic group that’s defined in part by being white or at least white-ish. ‘Whites aren’t allowed to have ethnic identity’ is just false to me, they’re not allowed to have ethnic identity generically as whites. German American or Irish American heritage or whatever is not controversial. Southern heritage is, but that’s individual prejudice. Yes there are stupid things being done that harm whites on the whole, but it’s a suspicious gerrymander to define white Americans as an ethnic group excluding non-whites.
This is a sleight of hand. "Black people who have lived here since the 17th century are American, so that means that whatever foreigner showed up 5 years ago is American too!" Despite the fact that there were 2% Mexicans and 0.1% Chinese living in America in 1870 or whatever, the large majority of the non-white population has only been present since after 1965 and can be easily distinguished from the pre-1965 inhabitants in terms of culture alone.
More options
Context Copy link
No it's not going to happen, a fact which is known to all "White Nationalists." Jews don't expect to attain a majority, but for some reason that doesn't stop them from organizing on tribal lines, in fact their minority status makes their agitation for Jewish interests all the more important in their mind. So this statement, while true, does absolutely nothing to rebut the importance of a white identitarianism in the face of the reality of demographic change, and this fact underscores the importance for why it's necessary to advocate for it given the reality we live in today. Whites becoming a minority only makes the danger of prevailing anti-white culture and propaganda more acute.
Ok, so you concede the point... Notice that there is a "white identity" when it is a subject of criticism and critique of everyone else, but anybody who is put under that umbrella by Progressives cannot actually advocate for the ethnic identity that is central to their critique of prevailing culture? It doesn't make any sense.
Many white Americans are not "German American", they are a mix of different European ethnicities, which is why a "white" ethnic identity is a coherent ethnic category. It's good enough in every sense: in census data, crime statistics, leftist cultural critiques and CRT, but when it comes to advocacy in the same terms as every single other ethnic identity then all of a sudden it's an invalid category. That's incoherent, it's hostile.
I've always found the claim against self-identification as White in the face of African American identity rather farcical. Because whites didn't trace their ancestry and maintain distinct European cultural traditions they can't identify as White? But it's ok for African Americans because many were descended from slavery, can't trace their ancestry at all, so they're allowed to create an identity? You're not allowed to identify as Chinese unless you specifically can trace your Han lineage back to a particular province?
It's just clear anti-White advocacy, I suspect based on a fear of the specter of Nazism and White ethno-nationalism. Divide and conquer with 30+ white identities who are never allowed to find common interest. But attacking them all as 'White' is fine and dandy of course.
It’s ok for African Americans because they’re an ethnic group. White Americans are not- white southerners and WASPs and midwestern Germans and Utah Mormons are, but you’ll notice those groups have not always gotten along and presented a United front.
Yes, the definition of ethnic group is somewhat arbitrary and you can draw a gerrymander to where white Americans to the exclusion of non-white passing individuals are an ethnic group, but it’s a suspicious gerrymander. You can argue that white southerners and wasps and Italian Americans and midwestern Germans and Utah Mormons and the like should cooperate against other ethnic groups, but I don’t trust no Yankee and the arguments for why I should pick Yankees over more culturally similar blacks need to be made instead of relying on white solidarity that doesn’t exist need to actually be made.
Like look, a lot of the distinguishing cultural markers for African Americans are stupid and destructive, but they do exist in a way that distinguishes African Americans as a whole from other Americans in a way that doesn’t for white Americans.
You could just as easily say that Germans aren't a real ethnicity with this argument. "Brandenburgers and Rhinelanders and Badenese and Bavarians and Austrians are, but you'll notice these groups have not always gotten along and presented a united front."
Americans can be an ethnic group, but any normal measure by which Americans are an ethnic group would include lots of non-white people, most notably african americans(not black Americans as a whole, there's lots of nigerians and haitians and the like here). "White Americans" are not an ethnic group by any measure that isn't a gerrymander, they're a collection of ethnic groups, and a normal way to measure which lumps them all together would lump African Americans in with them unless it's just motivated by anti-black racism. One needn't be a particular fan of blacks, and I am not, to recognize that for consistency's sake, African Americans are heritage Americans, and significantly more heritage than many white groups that are a major presence(eg Italian Americans).
Which is ironic because they're more likely to resent America. Anecdotally speaking. I'd have to see numbers to know for certain.
More options
Context Copy link
No, it wouldn't, because race is both a meaningful difference and historically where the line was drawn in American culture. Next you're going to tell me that Cape Coloreds and Afrikaners are the same ethnicity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is just completely absurd. The very first Congress of the United States codified that naturalization of foreign-born citizens was restricted to "free whites of good character". It is unbelievable that you deny the existence of this ethnic group when one of the very first acts of the Congress of the United States was to explicitly restrict naturalization to white people.
Likewise, during slavery and segregation and ever since there has been a distinction between "Whites" and "colored" (or whatever term is being used at the time). In census data, the unit of distinction has always been "whites" and non-whites of different categories. Same goes for crime statistics tracked by the FBI. "White" is also treated as a coherent ethnic identity when it is subjected to criticism by Hollywood and academic institutions and affirmative action. There are many many cases where the existence of a "white" ethnic identity is accepted and taken for granted, it's only in the case of advocacy where people like you come out of the woodwork and deny that such a thing actually exists.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not American, but I don't buy this at all. You talk about Gerrymandering, but there is clearly a 'just so' line drawn about what groups are allowed to assert a cultural identity and those that are not. Whites cannot, but Blacks can. For nebulous ill defined reasons that are seemingly asserted to prevent any defence against attacks against Whites as a whole.
If Whites aren't an ethnic group, why is the identification of and assault on them and their flaws largely uncontested in the overton window?
Part of that is surely that the vast majority of American blacks belong to a single ethnic group- African Americans- whereas there is no similarly dominant group for white Americans. And almost all "black cultural" celebrations are really just African American culture, which is far more similar to other American groups than to, eg, Nigerian culture, to the extent that American English uses "he's black" to mean "he's a member of the African American ethnic group" and would say "he's African/from Africa" to refer to a Nigerian as opposed to "he's black".
I agree that anti-white racism exists, but I don't think you really grasp how fringey the sorts of pan-Africanist ideas that would be used to back up "blacks can assert a cultural identity and whites cannot" are. American whites are a collection of different ethnic groups, some of them larger and some of them smaller, and most of them can assert a cultural identity. It's deplorable that southern whites aren't allowed to be proud of their heritage, but it's not really something that applies to, say, midwestern Germans.
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
I kind of do abhor Chinese nationalism? And Russian nationalism, and so on, proportional to how much each feels like a threat. It’s worse when it’s explicitly racial rather than cultural, because
America is the best in the worldmy own cultural values say that race-based nationalism is silly at best. Civic nationalism or patriotism is much more comfortable.In America, there are a lot of white people, and a history of wignats organizing to do stuff I don’t like. Therefore, they get a few bumps up the threat ladder. Even though I don’t think they have any credible route to harming me or mine, they rate higher than most other racial nationalists. Ingroup, outgroup, fargroup, I suppose.
Working on down the line, Israeli nationalism doesn’t feel as threatening. I know you probably disagree with that.
No you don't, a Chinese person identifying Chinese and having a healthy level of ethnic self-regard and association with Chinese history and culture and advocating for the interests of the Chinese both in China and abroad, you would not find "abhorrent", do not lie. If China wanted to remain Chinese, which it does, you would find not find that abhorrent.
What a cop-out, as if "wignats" are the only population group that have identified as white and advocated for white people. The very people who founded America identified as such and had strong associations with their race, so White Nationalists also have a history of organizing stuff you do like, to a much more impactful degree in your daily life than Jewish nationalism without any shred of doubt.
What's threatening is advocating for ethno-nationalism for your ingroup and individualism for your outgroup, which is what Jewish nationalism does. But because of the alchemy of Hollywood and our cultural institutions, this state of affairs doesn't feel threatening to you, and I believe you that it doesn't. But demographic change is proof that this state of affairs has real-world implications, it doesn't feel threatening because if you perceived it as threatening you would be ostracized from society.
95% of people have no issue with this.
What is a good level of ethnic self-regard? Why should a Chinese person support Chinese people more? If it's 'genetic self-interest for overall genetic health', why not pick the smart jew over the dumb chinese?
nobody has an issue with this.
Vacuous claim, this entirely depends on which interest are being advocated for.
More options
Context Copy link
If you doubt what someone says, or think you may be operating under different definitions, then ask questions, do not jump straight to calling them a liar.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link