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 -
Not sure if this belongs here or in SQS, but it could either be a small question I don't understand or a discussion depending on whether or not people disagree about the answer.
Why did support for Ukraine split along the left/right the way it did (at least in the U.S.), when typically one would expect it to go the other way. That is, the right is usually more pro-military, pro-military intervention, and patriotic defending of one's homeland. Even though the right tends to be more focused on domestic issues and oppose foreign aid, military support tends to be the exeption. Although there was bipartisan support of the Iraq war (at least in the aftermath of 9/11) the Republicans were more strongly in favor of it and stayed in favor of it for longer. If Russia had threatened to invade the U.S. the Republicans would have been not only gung-ho about repelling them but also about retaliating and obliterating them in revenge so that none would dare try ever again. So you would think they would sympathize with Ukrainians as similarly patriotic defenders of their home turf, while the left would be all peace and let's try to get along and diplomatically convince the invaders to stop without violence, or something like that.
But that's not what happened. Why?
Is it just because the left has been harping on about Putin for years so hopped on the anti-Russia train too quickly and the right felt compelled to instinctively oppose them? If China had invaded Ukraine (for some mysterious reason) would the right be pro-Ukraine and the left opposing intervention because they don't want to piss off China (and accusing Ukraine of being nazis as an excuse)? That is, is there something specific to Ukraine/Russia that caused this divide here specifically, or am I misunderstanding the position of each side regarding military intervention in general (or has it changed in the past few decades and my beliefs used to be accurate but no longer are)?
The "Dissident Right" sees Ukraine as a puppet of their boogeyman, The New World Order, going back at least as far as the Maidan Revolution, which they think was a coup orchestrated by hated Neocons and Globalists (aka Satanic Pedophile Freemasons). Putin, meanwhile, is anti-LGBTQ++, so he's the based warrior holding out against the tide of Globohomo-ism. I know very intelligent people who believe this. To quote a friend of mine (who has two Masters degrees), when I asked him why he is so uncritical of Putin's Russia, "I know we [America/Western Civ] are evil. I don't know that about Putin."
I find it bitterly ironic that Twitter far right wingers who claim to be Nazis seeking americas demographic replacement by tradcaths because it is supposedly controlled by commies are now rooting for Russia to invade a country whose military is controlled by Nazis and in the process of demographic replacement by tradcaths which Russia will probably ethnically cleanse while justifying it with pro-commie rhetoric.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know about the New World Order but aren't the US pro-LGBTQ++? It seems to be an important aspect of US foreign policy to antagonize close allies/trade partners in regards to their LGBTQ++ policies, for example.
Is that an incorrect statement?
Why do you think that they are wrong?
They’re wrong because Russia isn’t ‘based and trad’ compared to Western civilization, as countless people including our own Russian regulars like Dase have noted many times. Russia has immense corruption, huge mass immigration from Islamic Central Asia, declining religiosity, bottom tier birthrates (certainly among, uh, Christians) and the same empty, vacuous popular culture as the west.
At least America is rich, Russia isn’t even that.
I was specifically asking about the LGBTQ++ angle. There is nothing wrong in thinking that the US are more pro-LGBTQ than Russia, or is there?
Once Russia is taken out by the usual spring-time CIA peaceful protest, who else seriously stands against the tide of Globohomo-ism? China?
Perhaps not trad but various Russian policies would qualify as 'based' by Internet right-wing standards. Moreover as the Russian progressives are drained out by current events and isolation from the West, Russia is actually becoming more based as time goes. The fact that more and more Russians come online to English-speaking websites to complain about Russia is a testament to this phenomenom.
Isn't corruption better when you're a wealthy dissident? I sure bet some of these Jan 6th political prisoners wished they could bribe themselves out of their current predicament.
Yes and causing nowhere near the issues London, Paris, Berlin or even some US cities have to deal with iirc. Russia is an example of globalism done right, if anything. Many on the right have been able to unironically cheer for the Taliban, so that's not necessarily an issue either.
Somewhat contradicting with mass islamic immigration? Or do you mean a decline in religiosity from its absolute height of attendance under state atheist USSR? If the government is at least pro-traditional religion then there is hope, unlike in the West.
Soviet-tier Christians. Real Christians will not go extinct but their day-to-day family lives are greatly improved when removed from a strictly anti-Christian society.
Wealth is a sin in itself, so not surprising that the apparent sum total of the Western people's morality in itself is greatly lower than that of the more humble Central Asian people.
More options
Context Copy link
And as a bonus, modern Russian patriotism continues to have uncomfortable levels of attachment (just one example) to the old Bolshevik rule, which the based and trad conservative Western Russia simps choose to ignore time after time.
That's a state effort, not example of grass-roots patriotism. With which Kremlin is rather uncomfortable and has been suppressing as of late with arrests, official harrasment etc.
You should have rather posted the various guys flying Tzar / Bolshevik era flags side by side. (yes, really).
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