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 -
For a while now, I have been irked by the 'bothsidesism' around South Asian communities, or honestly what is hindu vs muslim discourse in English media (Indian or Western).
The division of India eventually saw the formation of 3 nations : India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh were continuously persecuted, as the Hindu communities in either country sought refuge in India. On the other hand, Indian law protects muslims with rights that exceed those of the resident majority hindus. The percentage of muslims in India keeps rising and even the idea of equal-laws-for-all (uniform civil code, equal regulation of all religious institutions) are abandoned by both the Congress and the so-called-fascist BJP.
Somehow, lobbying for issues of muslim concern is not considered Islamist, but lobbying for hindu concerns is actively considered far-right-hindu-extremist.
Hindus, when they've immigrated to foreign nations, have quickly integrated, become major contributors to the economy and haven't had a single instance of religious terrorism while there. On the other hand, irrespective of the peacefulness of the median muslim, marginal muslims have certainly contributed to terrorism, violence and ghettoization within foreign nations. Even in India, Muslims (and communists) constitute nearly 100% of terrorist attacks within the borders. (2 directional sectarian riots have occured, but they become incredibly hard to decipher chicken-n-egg questions)
Hindus do not proselytize, do not go around calling other religions blasphemers or heathen and reject tests of religious purity.
There are 3 majority Hindu majority nations and all 3 are true secular democracies. Each country at its worst, is still more liberal and religiously open-minded than any large muslim country in the world. (RIP Kemal Ataturk's Turkey)
India has a 'no first use' nuclear policy while Pakistan has a 'first use' nuclear policy.
I could go on and on.............
Hindus has time and again shown to have different sociological group traits than muslim immigrants from the subcontinent. Bodesideism here is visibly incorrect, and the greater emphasis on hindu violence is even more so. This is a big part of why Indians dislike the term South Asian. The differences between Hindu and Muslim communities in the subcontinent are salient. The differences between Indians (likely coded hindu) and Pakistani/Bangladeshi (surely coded muslim) are therefore salient too.
Spend long enough down that train of through, and you'd realize that Nehru truly was the first woke-liberal leader the world had ever seen. (and the resulting fallout is a very clear indication of why ideologically blinded woke leaders are terrible in roles that require pragmatism)
This paper points out that most of the Indian elite have been educated in Anglosphere (American and British) universities. And these ideas that you mention sound suspiciously familiar to the social justice ideas, common in those universities, that the majority (White in the West) is the oppressor and it is good to advocate for the minority or encourage them to operate as a cohesive group, but fascism to do the same for the majority. It sounds like the same principle is just being applied to Hindus and Muslims.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link