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 -
A bit of heat generated by Trump dubbing Nikki Haley "Nimbra", a butchering of her Indian birth name:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4420434-trump-on-mocking-haleys-birth-name-its-just-something-that-came/
I'm not sure who the media controversy is aimed at. His base is absolutely going to love it, the normal Repubs have no choice but to vote for him, and his enemies can't hate him more than they already do.
I predict if her numbers continue to climb, he's gonna mention her daughter's married to a black guy. Way too tempting for a guy like Trump.
On that, a surprising number of the establishment Republicans have kids married to black people. Haley, McCain, Boehner, etc. What's with that?
As a general rule, Republicans do not share the Democrats' fixation on race essentialism.
What, just Charles Murray and this board? Doesn't feel plausible.
I'm currently at a fairly conservative educational institution. I spend practically all my time around intelligent young conservatives.
I'd be very cautious about bringing up anything HBD-ish to others (to date, I don't think I have). Racism is not viewed favorably, and I'd have to be pretty cautious to avoid pattern-matching onto being a racist. Keep in mind that this caution also that this is despite everyone in sight being in favor of free speech. I suppose this might not be perfectly representative, because most in my social circles are more religious. But you really can't just think that because people are conservative or Republican, they're therefore acquainted with or in favor of Charles Murray. There is one person who told me that he likes to read Steve Sailer (I assume there are some others, but I don't know them), one person who I know wishes the south won the civil war (but is against slavery), and that's about the extent of things that could be classified as some variety of racism that I am aware of.
I do expect it to rise in commonality a little—the popularity of Substack along with Musk purchasing twitter should, I imagine, raise the prevalence of HBD-ish ideas, by putting them in places where people will actually read them. Not sure how I feel about that—it's probably good for us not to be under the delusion that differences are still due to oppression etc. But it may well lead to a revival of more distasteful garden-variety racism that has been largely removed from the united states for the last few decades, which is unfortunate.
To be fair, I forgot to mention that some people do make racist jokes.
There are varying degrees of racist jokes, and there are varying degrees to which different races are allowed to be made fun of, e.g.. What are you considering "racist jokes" here?
I don't even remember, and can't generate a suitable one off the top of my head, but someone said something that prompted me to add that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You need to remember that most of the posters here are not Republicans, they're Gilfoyle-style Silicon Valley satanists. They like Trump for accelerationist reasons and because they find him entertaining, but if there were a serious threat of a Republican president actually enacting a socially conservative agenda most of them would swing so hard into the Democrats' camp that they'd make you look like the second coming of Ronald Reagan in comparison.
Describing the negative attributes of "most" posters here is fraught, given that it's a one-way ticket to an argument about the thread meta, with attendant accusations of consensus-building. If you have a disagreement with specific posters, why not take it up with those posters? If you don't want to take it up with them directly, why not just go with "some"? Do you think "most" people here are going to look at this description and think "yeah, that's an accurate description of me, fair play"? If not, what sort of response are you expecting? The point you're making can be entirely legitimate, but the way you're making it seems like you're looking to start a fight.
You've been wracking up a lot of reports lately, and while most of them haven't been slam-dunk objections, a lot of your comments have been pretty marginal. "low effort" and "antagonistic" are a spectrum, and there has to be a line somewhere, but you've seemed inclined to ride the line lately. Your recent record is a string of warnings and temp-bans, and while you did make an effort-post recently reported for AAQC, the slack that buys is not infinite. The ban is going to be three days this time, and it will escalate if you continue making a habit of low-effort potshots. Please find a better way to channel your insights when you return.
More options
Context Copy link
From the outside, that was maybe more true under this place's prior home, but I think there are far more just out and out right-wingers or more accurately, people who have become more right-wing over time. Sure, there are some Grey Tribe or whatever people still here, but many of the comments here, policy-wise, when American politics come up, are just a more erudite version of the comments under any National Review or Federalist article.
Color me skeptical.
I believe that our more vocal wignats would all flip on a dime if a real threat to the gay agenda or the H1B visa regime were to present itself because as much as they might hate black people and the establishment, I imagine that they would hate their own ox getting gored even more.
In what possible way are H-1B visas a wignat's ox? In your fervor to put 'everyone who isn't a conservative who won't do anything but retreat until they can retreat no more and then wait for the eschaton' into the same box, you've come up with a lot of ideas that don't make any sense at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ha ha no. I consider the obligatory parts of the Republican conservative agenda somewhat like the obligatory parts of the Islamic conservative agenda, only much less so. Instead of growing a beard, giving up alcohol, and mouthing some prayers 5 times a day, I just have to go to church once a week, beard optional. Oh, and abstain from drugs (wait, I already do that), infidelity (ditto), abortion (not equipped), stealing and murdering (again, already accomplished), etc. I suppose I'd have to cut down some on swearing, at least in polite company, but I'm rarely in such company anyway. I am, or perhaps was, a libertarian, but I'm not a libertine and most of the restrictions Republicans would impose would sit rather lightly, unless they went full Amish or police-state or something.
You say that but per your own words it is also "better to hold your nose and vote democrat than be mistaken for a faux news watching drumpf supporter".
Like I've said the last 3 times we've had this conversation, Kolmogorov Complicity is just Complicity.
I said that (though I can't find it now) but I wasn't speaking about myself.
And I still haven't disagreed with you about that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I can’t speak for the Silicon Valley comparison, but you are wrong on the second part. I’d prefer nearly anyone over Dems or neocons, and actual social conservatives of non-Islamic flavor are nowhere near the bottom of these preferences.
More options
Context Copy link
Eh, while most posters here aren't exactly fundamentalist Christians, they mostly know they'd adapt well enough to spending an hour or two a week in church.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why do you think Amy Coney Barrett adopted Haitian children if there was no fixation on race? There is obviously a virtue signaling element to that kind of decision, which is tied to the racial dynamics at play. She is leaning into those dynamics rather than rejecting them.
You can have virtue signaling without race.
More options
Context Copy link
Catholicism.
ACB is a wealthy catholic woman and Haiti is a majority catholic country with a surplus of catholic orphans in catholic orphanages in [current year] where US child services tend to frown upon faith-based adoption in general and that of Trad-Caths in particular.
While the Trad-Caths(to which ACB is adjacent, although not actually technically one- Thomas and Scalia both were/are AFAIK) are sometimes a trial balloon for liberal democrat "let's try to crack down on conservative Christians for not being progressives" policies, there aren't actually any Trad-Cath adoption agencies. The three or so adoptions a year coming from Trad-Cath mothers(as it turns out making large families a status symbol and not allowing unmarried women unsupervised time with the opposite sex does a number here) find a recipient family without going through an agency through a whisper network.
Agreed, however, that the religious Catholicism is the reason for adopting Haitian children; having a large to very large family is a necessity for a woman in her social milieu and orphans from Haiti are easy to get if you don't care about race.
This is actually not true though, the entire process was extremely expensive, difficult, and shady to say the least. It was absolutely not the path of least resistance for adopting children, they really wanted Haitian children.
More options
Context Copy link
Only because any agency that refused to toe the liberal line on abortion and sexual orientation got its' ass shut down 20 years ago. The purge of church-run orphanages and adoption agencies, ostensibly for the children's protection, was a whole thing during the late 90s and early 2000s. CCB was the last holdout, and they closed their doors in 2006.
Sure, but also IRL Trad-Caths don't need any adoption agencies, although I suppose underclass hispanics would line up to use theirs if available; when you have high ingroup cohesion and practically no fornication the handful of children a year that need to be adopted out can just be handled by a whisper network and you use a secular agency after the deal's already been made if applicable law requires it.
Ok that makes more sense, I think I misread/misinterpreted your previous comment as suggesting that Catholics weren't big on adoption to which my knee-jerk reaction was basically "Say Whut?"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Also, while this doesn't apply to someone as wealthy as ACB, for normal people who want to adopt there are far more non-white babies available than white
That, and it's possible to inspect the merchandise before purchase rather than simply ordering and accepting it sight-unseen.
For a good that costs that much, even more so because these items are sold as-is with no warranty or return policy, I'm not surprised that even people wealthy enough to afford this kind of item are more interested in purchasing from a store that doesn't take multiple days to get to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree, though I don’t think it’s mostly about virtue signaling to the left. It also seems (admittedly I have no firsthand experience) that a lot of those southern megachurches have a big fixation on fundraising for Africa, African famines and so on, and about Haiti. They have church groups that travel to these places, they spend a lot of money on political activity in these places. The left is often complaining about alleged American Christian involvement in eg. Uganda’s laws on homosexuality. Traditional Catholics also seem to hold Haiti as especially important (I suppose unsurprising given it’s a Catholic country), ACB’s adoption decision clearly wasn’t random.
No we don't. Traditional Catholics are regularly in mainland Latin America(Columbia, Peru, Mexico, etc) doing stuff but rarely discuss Haiti.
More options
Context Copy link
It's bang for your buck. Africa is a big place and you'll see the focus is on "Christian" sub-Saharan Africa because the countries are pretty open to interventions. Same with Papua New Guinea as apposed to Western New Guinea. Also map interventions that were former British Colonies because then you need less language skills. Haiti does speak French but it's also rather close.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Boehner has said that his daughters are Democrats. No idea about the other two.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link