site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 1, 2024

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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

When racism had a socially dominant position, racists did in fact openly call themselves racist, and made lots of statements that very explicitly endorsed racism.

Is this actually true? I'd agree that many people openly stated beliefs that we'd label as racist, but I am curious if there are examples of "mainstream racists" (e.g. Wilson, segregation-era Southern elected politicians) openly describing themselves as racist.

Looking into the term, it seems to have originated in 1902 by Richard Henry Pratt, who said:

Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow. Association of races and classes is necessary to destroy racism and classism.

It doesn't seem to be something originating as a positive self-descriptor.

Ironically, he is better known for this quote:

Kill the Indian, save the man.

Contemporary times would give him a certain label.

Contemporary times would give him a certain label.

Why not say it then?

The irony of course is that as a sentiment "Kill the Indian, save the man" is positively enlightened, representing a shining beacon of Liberalism and Western Civilization in comparison to the to the typical rhetoric of the [current year] "woke left" and "dissident right".

I think you're doing a huge disservice to Liberalism and Western Civilization here.

Those are real things with real, important accomplishments.

However, those accomplishments have become so universally accepted and adopted that they're now just common sense, and what we still argue about in relation to those things are the controversial parts, the parts that many people either reject or have moved past onto new projects.

Because those are the only parts of Liberalism and Western Civilization that we still talk about, you're pretending like those parts are what those movements were about, entirely.

You're correct that this sentiment is a shining beacon for those small parts we still fight about today, and a nice rallying phrase for the people who still want to die on the hill of those parts alone.

But that's not fair to those movements, which were about a lot more than that, and had real acomplishments.

Those are real things with real, important accomplishments.

I agree, and the assumption that it is even possible to "save the man" in contrast to the admonishments of "bio-determinists" on both the left and right is exactly what I'm honing in on.

The irony of course is that as a sentiment "Kill the Indian, save the man" is positively enlightened, representing a shining beacon of Liberalism and Western Civilization in comparison to the to the typical rhetoric of the [current year] "woke left" and "dissident right".

Do you genuinely believe that, or are you being edgy or hyperbolic?

The "shining beacon" bit may be a tad hyperbolic but yes, I genuinely believe that.