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 -
Yes, another top level comment about The Origins of Woke from me, in the same thread on the same week. But this is about something else. I had an epiphany while reading the book.
I've wondered for many years why Marxism is more socially acceptable than racism when it's responsible for even more deaths than the Holocaust. It's because companies are (de facto) legally required to fire racists, but they're not required to fire Marxists. In fact, firing a Marxist for merely being Marxist would be illegal in California.
California has a state law against firing people for their political beliefs, but it didn't protect James Damore, who was fired in compliance with the law against creating a hostile work environment for protected groups.
It all adds up.
Communism might be responsible for more deaths than the Holocaust but all historical forms of racism put together are probably responsible for more deaths than communism. Not that it really matters. Probably the main reason why communism is more socially acceptable than racism is that communism seems more well-intentioned than racism. Communism mainly hates people for things that they can change about themselves (being rich, being capitalists, being landlords, etc.), whereas racism hates people for things they can't change about themselves. Also, whereas communists claim to fight for an unprecedented better world, racists have nothing new to promise because the world has seen plenty of racism before. It's old hat and does not have any air of novelty around it.
This is why communism is worse than racism. Hating people for their virtues is worse than hating people for morally neutral properties like race.
If you're going to present the least charitable take of what communists hate it would behoove you to match it with a similarly uncharitable take of what racists hate. Which isn't "just morally neutral properties". You could start by claiming islamophobes hate Muslims because Muslims are better at reproducing, or that antisemites hate Jews because Jews are better at mostly everything.
Just about the core moral tenet of communism is that owning wealth is not a virtue, and that capitalists didn't earn it by being virtuous, either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've been reliably informed by modern day whiteness studies scholars that racism cannot take place without white people, and "white people" were only invented as a concept in the 17th century. As such, the brutal and in many cases explicitly ethnically based conflicts of the past don't actually have anything to do with racism per se, so I don't think racism would actually have that high of a bodycount.
This is mostly just a boo-outgroup post. Don't do this please.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If there is anywhere left on planet earth that this conversation can be had, it's probably here. So I'm going to try. Let's take this as four separate assertions as see how they match up to what I will reluctantly call reality:
The Tsar could change the fact that he was the Tsar, but not the fact that he was born the Tsaritsyn. Communism did not demand his death because he refused to abdicate. He, and his entire family, including his infant children, had to die because of what they could not change about themselves. Namely, being more intelligent, more attractive, or born in any way with unequal (and from communism's perspective, unearned) advantage.
This is a 4-year-old's understanding of racism from sesame street in the 90's (the only time I can speak to as it's the only time I watched (growing up)). You are not in any way shape or form describing the modal "racist." The modal racist hates, for example:
Being raised in a country founded or dominated by a race other than their own
Experiencing discrimination as a child because of their race
Repeated negative exposures to particular behaviors exhibited by subgroups of a race
And I won't bother going on because you (the reader) gets my point. "I hate X because they're X" is an invention of Hollywood.
A better world for...whom? Only the very highest climbers, the one in ten thousand factory-worker-to-party-boss types, aren't worse off under communism than before. Because communists openly claim to fight for a world in which people like me and my family are murdered, and our homes and properties are given to people without any capacity or experience for proper care of either.
When was the last time anyone, in any position of any authority in the West, said something like "we'd expect fewer black people to qualify for xyz, that doesn't automatically mean the qualifications are unfair." Truly, I'm curious. Tom Buchannan was portrayed as a pigheaded racist 100 years ago
The Tsar and his family were hardly representative of people killed by Russian communists, being the leadership and obvious figurehead at the head of a social structure that was the most credible force opposed to the communists. To say that they were killed for being more intelligent and attractive is as disingenuous as saying that American capitalism killed Osama bin Laden for being more intelligent, eloquent and charismatic. If you want to argue for communists actually killing people on grounds of innate superiority, at least reach for an example like the Khmer Rouge (who enjoy far less modern approval than most other self-proclaimedly communist movements).
Your modal racist sounds like a caricature of someone who has trouble with grasping golden-rule ethics.
Perfectly fair point given how I organized the sentence; it should have been:
In this case the Tsar's 'unearned' advantage obviously being his circumstances of royal birth rather than his dashing good looks
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is an explanation of why racists hate members of certain groups. But, do you have empirical evidence for this claim? It certainly does not seem to explain the existence of racists in the past, and of course it ignores the extent to which outgroup antipathy is normal, and of course it ignores the role of socialization.
More options
Context Copy link
Not necessarily. Puyi wasn't executed and died a regular citizen of the PRC. Nicholas could've survived as well, but he ended up too close to the frontline of the civil war.
Puyi is a fair counterexample, thanks for bringing him up. He'd be interesting to learn more about sometime
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Other way around. It's only the one in ten thousand who's currently exploiting the rest who will be worse off under communism; without them everyone else will be either around where they already are or better off.
The people who believe this may not be correct, but it's what they believe and are fighting for: a better world for everyone except those with unearned privileges. They certainly don't believe they're fighting for a world where 9,999 people out of 10k are going to be worse off.
This does not pass muster; communism does not suggest that only one in ten thousand people are exploitative. One in ten is closer to the truth but a compelling argument could be made for even more.
I used it as a mirror to your own number.
But it's not the 'other way around' if it's a false equivalence? Communists clearly and explicitly advocate for murdering far more than one in ten thousand people? I'm confused what our miscommunication is here
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a contradiction in terms. They know those people are going to be worse off; they're OK with that as they believe those people deserve it ("unearned privileges" has taken literally every form under the sun already).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not a communist and I'm not trying to defend communism. I'm pretty well aware of its failings. I'm explaining why communism is widely viewed as more moral than racism.
You were describing how things 'seemed' - which I pretty much entirely agreed with. It does seem like communism desires milk and honey and racists are all dumb and ugly, etc. But none of that makes for particularly evocative conversation - our entire lives are steeped in it everyday.
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