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 -
Then they will be rightfully punished for it, choosing people based on just their skin colour instead of their abilities is textbook racism and deserving of correction. Lets see if 4 more years of the Democrats knocks some sense into their mind.
Aren't you the most racist indian on this board? Don't I see you slagging off white people every quarter? I would think you understood racism. Game recognize game.
Firstly I am not racist. I dislike "white" (read Western) modernity, nothing against white people as a group (apart from wanting to see them reduced in size, but again this is only because they disproportionately support progressive western modernity, if they did not believe such BS I wouldn't mind them at all). Most of my friends are even white!
If anything my prior on a random white person being prosocial on small personal scales is higher than my prior on a random person from any other race. If my house catches fire, I would prefer white firemen came to the rescue assuming I knew nothing else about them. The vast majority of the great stuff accomplished by humanity over the last 1000 years was the work of white people, and for that I am grateful.
At an individual level an average white person is probably better than an average non-white person, but at the group levels the beliefs and actions of white people are damaging to humanity in a way that the beliefs of non-white people (who I must add are not a monolith, some of their beliefs can also be extremely wacky, but thankfully the powers behind those beliefs are not strong enough to enforce them on the world, unlike the beliefs of white people) are not. I am against progressive "whiteness" as a concept, I am not against white people at all. No different to how it's possible to be against Zionism without being anti-Jew.
The problem is that on a macro scale the ideology they disproportionately have come to believe is bad. The roots of it stem from taking the idea of equality (a good useful idea, when applied properly to limited domains) and running away with it. Equality, like fire, is a good servant but a bad master. Unfortunately whites have destroyed the culture they used to believe in and replaced it with what I see as this perversion of Protestant Christianity.
They say that tradition is like a legacy codebase: half of it is superfluous and the other half is mission critical, and it's very hard to tell which half is which. Whites over the last 100 years have taken the cleaver to their old belief system (the liberalism of Locke and Mill tinged with Christianity) and in my opinion have throw out all the good stuff while keeping all the bad. And now this bad stuff, unchained from everything else which was keeping it in its place, is wrecking havoc on the world. Even worse, it's memetically very viral and is spreading from whites to everyone else. This ideology is corrupting, like cancer it spreads and then destroys whole societies if not cut at the root before it gets too big.
Unfortunately for white people the cancer has metastasized and now there is no hope of rescuing them as a whole from it. Just like in the olden days if a society adopted norms that performed badly in the real world they got conquered by someone else who probably had better norms (given that they managed to conquer you, probabalistically their norms are more likely to be in tune with the world than yours). And thus the cancer would die and not spread to the rest of the globe. These days we have moved on from violent conquering (a good thing I may add), however the cleansing effect it had is still a good thing and something the world could do with a replacement for.
Fortunately one byproduct of your twisted society is collapsing birthrates, this along with your misguided desires to take from those who create stuff to give to those who only have it in them to consume means you are beholden to more and more people from overseas with different belief systems coming to your lands, working and settling there. This means that over time this wicked culture is going to be replaced by something more in harmony with reality. It's slower than destroying the bad ways with the sword through violence, but I like to think that humanity has moved beyond that point in our cultural evolution now. Love (higher birthrates), not violence, is how the world is going to flush away your maladjusted social contract in the 21st Century.
Eventually it will be replaced by a system that is more in line with humanity flourishing, one where those with the vision to create great things are the ability to do so are not hampered by "what about all the poors?" and that is what I wish to see most of all, not just my people or your people, but all of humanity flourishing as we begin to embark of the next stage of the story of our species where we seek to banish disease and death, travel to the stars, learn about the fundamental structures at the heart of the universe and so on.
So yes, that is what I am against, not "white people", not "white people" at all inasmuch they are not acting as agents for promoting "progressive modernity" or even "reactionary small town conservatism" (which are the two ends of the cline modern Western discourse takes place on). I certainly would not call that "racist".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Vivek is not a viable candidate. The guy hasn’t really ever done anything. We have this idea that “where the candidate stands on the issues” is the most important thing. It isn’t.
The issues tend to change radically. Trump was elected in 2016. At the end of the day, it turns out the biggest issue over his term was COVID-19. No one heard of it in 2016. Ditto W in 2000 re terrorism. Biden with inflation. Obama didn’t have any major surprise under his watch.
It is therefore more important to understand how a candidate reacts to new challenges. What is their approach? What is their default? How competent are they in handling changes?
Part of that approach is what kind of team do they build. W failed because he built the Dick Cheney and Donny Rumsfeld War Band. Biden struggled because Ron Klein was super progressive. What record do we have of the candidate building in the context of government a successful team?
Based on all of that, Vivek isn’t a serious presidential candidate because he has no record. Maybe instead of running for president he should try running for governor or congressmen.
More importantly, we the voting public decry the state of our political straits. Yet we continue to fall for style over substance.
More options
Context Copy link
What do you think would be the difference between 4 more years of Democrats, and 4 years of Vivek?
Vivek wouldn't hand out untold amounts of money on failed lower class "uplift" programs that have been nothing more than black holes for the past few decades.
Yes he would. Best case scenario he would lower the slope of increase, which would already be condemned as "austerity".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The supreme court nominees.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link