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 -
No, you misunderstand me. Being contemptuous of the current form of progressivism is precisely what a virtuous right ought to do. It is defecting to various principles to not do that and conform with a destructive agenda.
But there is a sweet spot between treating the current form of progressivism with contempt and trying to be as edgy as possible. The right today has the other problem, not of edgyness but of playing a role in promoting progressive extremist policies, including of discriminatory nature.
Some of the edgy voices on the right might go too far sometimes. Moreover, progressive extremism is based on promoting a false dichotomy and the threat of far right extremism. So in addition to an ethical benefit, there is a tactical benefit too to behaving in line with the sweet spot. Most rightists in this forum are actually too much compromising with far leftist extremists and the tribal identitarianism. We should see progressive movement in power today as one that defects and both promotes hatred and abuse of the right outgroup, and discriminates and even persecutes it at every turn using rhetorical dirty tricks while doing so.
I don't think there is a positive value in conforming to the framing or the value system of the left. But while the constrains of leftists and many liberals should not bide the right, I do think it should still be constrained by principles. Someone needs to stand up for what is just. Indeed said principles not only necessitating not going too far in certain issues, but also to go far enough and act decisively enough.
Some level of White American identitarianism should be respected by everyone, including non Americans. I consider white Americans foreigners so I mean it. Its part of international justice and it is lacking in intellectualism to throw that to the side over antiwhite racism. White Americans have rights too. The opposite is unjust and racist. I have strong centrist influences in my way of thinking so it isn't just about the right.
In all honesty, the left should compromise with some level of white identity politics if it wants to stand with intellectually honest virtues and principles. The only version of International Justice that has ever worked well is the one that is about different ethnic groups having rights and respecting each others national self determination, national sovereignity, etc, etc. A situation where some ethnic groups have their history vilified and claimed not to belong to them while other ethnic groups are promoted at every turn fits into the very classic racist supremacy paradigm which is what the modern mainstream left agenda fits into.
In a multiethnic country like USA, not respecting that white American ethnic group has rights as a group is the position of racist extremists who try to push their agenda while concern trolling about just being against identity politics in bad faith. We all know that tribalism for ethnic groups (and yes racial groups are ethnic groups if they are treated as an ethnic group so Asians, Blacks qualify as ethnic groups in USA too) is quite acceptable in the USA and in general.
I don't think everyone eliminating identity politics is a good choice anyhow, since it doesn't work, and the people who mostly focus on promotintg this are concern trolls who want to eliminate the tribalism of their right wing outgroup ethnicities but don't exert anywhere near that effort for ethnic groups associated with the left, including racial ones like Blacks. In fact we see the opposite.
But we can to some extend get different tribes to respect each others rights to a greater or less degree. This in fact does conflict with a vision of white nationalism which is about whites having all the rights and other groups having none.
What I promote is intolerance towards the immoral and incorrect viewpoint that it is universalism to disallow tribalism and rights for right wing outgroup. It isn't universalism, it isn't based on any intellectual valid principle either but it is based on partisan rhetoric against the outgroup. It is war by deception.
Personally, I don't see my ethnic group as a race, although it isn't totally irrelevant aspect, it is just the ethnicity is a more exclusive category, and there is a broader category that might be related to it that I fit to. But it is just special pleading by racists to disallow white American ethnic groups any rights. Plus, when talking about whites it includes various european ethnic groups as well which also have rights that ought to be respected.
So yeah, I am not a fan of a vision of the world where white ethnic groups are only ones with rights and we shit on the rest, or the opposite. Not only the left, but the right will become less racist if it compromises with respecting the rights of european ethnic groups. And what I say about edginess is about avoiding making it the thing to be predatory towards other ethnic groups. Both because being in the sweet spot is a good goal in itself but also because it doesn't help the goal of defeating the primary racism of today which is leftist one and yes does have an antiwhite hue. Because as I said, one of the way that progressive racists promote their agenda is to falsely paint themselves as moderate and to paint the alternative as extreme. When they are on one side of the extreme and there is in fact an ethically superior moderate alternative.
Indeed, if one focuses in taking polls and seeing the way people in Europe think including some western countries like France, and more western countries a couple decades ago, this way of thinking was dominant. It is just that a minority of elites pushed through their more extreme agenda by not respecting the wishes of the people. If one focuses on polls outside of europe, one again finds little of the "eliminate all tribes" ideology. And if one focuses on liberals and leftists in western countries, one again finds very very few who push this consistently for all tribes and ethnic groups. Maybe in the past where marxists were more separate faction than the rest of the left, there might been some of them who were more sincere, but even actual marxists were promoter of cultural marxism, with third world nationalism.
*** What I say about the left and liberalism apply to an extend to past liberals. In 20th century there have been plenty of far leftist liberals and cultural marxists who supported nationalism for left wing tribes and were racist on ethnic europeans. But being fair, moderate nationalism as part of international justice has been an agenda that some leftists and quite more people aligned with, including liberals. The more far left faction and ethnic lobbies like ADL didn't really win an intellectual agenda, just pushed their view through with force and by marching in institutions.And this has not been a march towards progress but a degeneration towards injustice and into more racism, more bigotry, greater double standards, more hatred.
When it comes to the more moderate nationalism as part of international justice way of thinking, of course when it comes to centrists and rightists, it was quite the dominant strain, and remains so in many eastern european countries.
Ironically leftist intersectionality has elements of this within the progressive stack favored groups that there must be some compromise between the tribalism of the related ethnic groups and other identity groups. However, the white group that you argue against identity politics, are those which are not respected and no compromise is made for it.
Also, even American conservatives like Tucker Carlson also do this with groups like blacks. They don't say to blacks or other groups you must have no tribal identity. They find blacks who have a conception of themselves as a group, care about the well being of their group but they like white people to an extend, and they promote them. Indeed they themselves respect said blacks like Kanye West seeing their ethnic group as a valid group to identify with.
The way American conservatives like Carlson want American blacks to behave, I don't see why someone who isn't an antiwhite racist would reject for white Americans. Frankly, any notion of American multiculturalism makes zero sense without some level of white tribalism and white identity politics.
So to summarize your point, you think that the right wing should be more intolerant of Progressive virtues. I agree. But could you highlight what that looks like exactly?
The problem is it feels like conservatives are stuck between a rock and a hard place in some ways. How does the right fight against the left without escalating? I agree that breaking political norms and pushing populist extremism and violence is a terrible idea.
So does the right start cancelling people? Trying to capture institutions the way the left has been doing for decades?
What I call to be intolerant of is not really a case of virtue. Lets call it an ideology, if we want to be neutral.
There are elements of liberalism of the more classical variety that as is apparent I do think are valuable.
No, we don't agree. You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth in a way that helps you political side. I say the right shouldn't promote a predatory philosophy. Breaking political norms is the only sane idea since progressive extremists promote as political norm for them to win and an abuse of norm for any non progressive extremist to do anything. The "moderate" right (actually extremists) have been promoting hate speech laws, discriminatory policies, mass migration, and even in Britain have even aligned with zero carbon emission agendas.
So obviously a principled manner to behave should abhor the radicalization to far left and other agendas we have seen over the latest period of time.
I also never used the word populist in a negative sense, although my views are not wholly positive about populism.
The reality is woke extremists use the term populist as a pejorative and in doing so they oppose actual sane things they associate with populism.
The violent fantasy shouldn't be the way to work through, but hard work in promoting your ideals and trying to capture institutions. But I didn't say anywhere that violence is a terrible idea, nor a good idea so you are bringing a new element. It should not be the focus. Action is necessary and that action is not going to be of the form of physical violence, but arresting criminals for example can involve violence and when being physically attacked, physically defending yourself is violence. But sure, physical violence is not the goal here, but a moral order should be the goal. A just society with enforceable rules might have coercion in it but typically ends up with much less physical violence over an alternative more chaotic unjust society.
Of course. Immoral not to do so and only moral to do so. Now, I would oppose purity spiraling and cancelling moderates in the way I define it. Which means evenhanded people. Note, you are not an evenhanded individual. But trying to put people in positions of power who don't abuse it and removing those who do abuse it, and gatekeeping so the later don't reach those positions is a necessity. It is also how you get a more free society to remove the political comisars who impose struggle sessions on anyone not with their extreme ideology.
But there are other considerations at play here as well like promoting truth, or that people do have a right to a community, including an ethnic community, and not to be constantly shut upon. The extreme racism promoted by progressive supremacists and the constant propaganda of that nature is it self a massive problem. Not to add consequences of rise of crime due to BLM, or other agendas.
You could say, I align with promoting the agenda of a late 20th century patriotic normie who wants the good of his people without trying to be predatory on others.
The song and dance where far leftist extremists define themselves as moderate and call others to let them win or they are extremists and then use authoritarian means to censor, ban them, etc is rather tiresome.
My view on the right is that there is much less extremism and more a case of rightists being less absolute morons being taken advantage of by bad faith actors.
To be honest, when I complain about extremists it is people who offer this kind of extremist special pleading I am talking about. Far left extremism has been such a dominant force because we have to deal with people who after revealing they are progressives then change their attitute into the friendly advisor who must ask if conservatives have a right to exist and fight for its perspective from a weaker position. Then they pick as good alternative the leftists in conservative clothing.
Trying to win the culture war by pulling dirty tricks. Yes, it is hard for you for conservatives to fight back because you want them to lose. Even at this point when you would expect the fear of left wing extremism and further to be more motivating to a reasonable person than conservatives fighting back. The kind of policies being implemented should make you more afraid of conservatives not fighting back.
Let me offer an example. You got a choice to pick between a far left extremist who is against the right wing existing and a moderate who thinks accurately that far left extremists have went too far and want to push things in a more right wing direction to a point. You pick the later and exclude the first, benefiting your society in the process by promoting a person who is more truthful, less authoritarian and out to enforce things in line with the spirit and rule of the law. Especially before it was subverted. Much better than the far left extremist who hides his power level. Conservatives fighting back and getting institutions to stop screwing over right wing outgroups and the native people of western societies and more is actually a good thing.
The danger of escalation is an overblown issue much overwhelmed by the danger of conservatives who aren't even moderate but aligning with far to the left agendas. So, the way to do this is to focus on reality and the real problems, while not forgeting valid principles and the valid way to behave, which actually does change to an extend based on situation. Proportionality is still a thing though, but you operate differently in a political environment X where say the left is of a more extreme, intolerant variety, and different in an environment Z, where they are more moderate and tolerant.
So there is a room for compromise but only with people who are already of a more moderate disposition which makes it less of a compromise. But the secret of power is that any victorious faction does forge its victory not only through exclusion but also through flipping people from a position of strength, by promoting its own perspective as valid and being just as willing to offer the carrot as the stick. So my other alternative to add is that the right should do more patronage of culture.
Like the activists who have seized important positions in the goverment, we can get people to support what I advocate by giving writers, artists, even academics studying actual valid fields. So abandoning the libertarian albatross will help gain some elites along. Rewarding friends and punishing enemies its power 101.
But there is a difference with the left since too much parasitism is a bad thing. Things we have now with the activist complex can not be tolerated to exist even in rightist form because it is an immoral waste. So cancelling the diversity propaganda jobs will weaken the powercenter, and banning organizations like hope not hate, ADL, SPLC, etc. The authoritarian progressive supremacist and extorting grifter donation seeking activists that have succeeded in corrupting the goverment and powerful private institutions should ideally be made illegal outright and I rather we don't create a right wing analogue since such organizations are rather extreme, and are parasitical besides siphoning wealth and influence that is better reserved for elsewhere. If we have a right wing ADL dominating society in the same way ADL does now, we would have an example of a purity spiral in the rightist direction.
But we can have weaker, more moderate organizations, which means promoting public morality of course. And the world I envision there is pluralism and debate, but there is an overton window that is to the right of now's but still has limits to both right and left, but is much more limiting of far leftism than what we have now.
There is a reason why I use the term moderate because it isn't really just about the right but also about actual genuine moderates, since the current situation is intolerable to anyone who favors a moderate end. So yeah, this is an exploration of how it would look like for the right and others pushing in this direction I advocate. If you want every single detail I can't give it to you, partly because it is part of my personal philosophy to believe there are gray areas that are up to debate and black and white areas that we need to be more adamant on. So I don't actually have a vision of the world where there is an answer to every question, or I believe someone ought to have the answer to every question.
Things moving less to the left and more rightist direction to a point is one of the black and white things. Dosage makes the poison so constantly doubling down towards any direction is death, is another black and white thing. But there is a range of different dosages which might work. Yours is not one of them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link