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 -
This seems like it touches upon the same topics as all the secession/independence debates do - who is obliged to get out of the way? Do the people who want nothing to do with the secessionist project have the right to a state of their own, and who has the obligation to get out of the way for that? The idea that any group of people can consensually obtain their own clay on which they only answer to themselves is appealing enough to me in theory, but the practice of it runs into insurmountable problems. Any such group seldom already controls a contiguous piece of land, and fair division algorithms (forgetting for a moment about their asymptotic complexity) only work if the subdivision valuations are independent (so you don't have preferences like "I want parcel A iff I can have parcel B"), which is basically never the case for land.
In concrete terms, you can't build a viable country by aggregating the land held by all ethnonationalists in Europe - so either there is no ethnostate, or someone will have to move, or someone will have to forfeit their freedom of association. All to often, secessionists just wind up arbitrarily privileging their cause - their enemies should get out of the way of their clubhouse state, but they shouldn't have to get out of the way of the enemy enclave stuck in the clubhouse. (See e.g. North Kosovo) This is also what I wind up hearing when these people talk about "white racial solidarity" (as opposed to a more narrowly writ "solidarity among white nationalists") - it sounds suspiciously like a demand that I should have solidarity with them, and join their ethnostate against my will.
Also,
I'm not sure what the working definition of "American" is here; Black Africans have been part of the continent's population since before anything resembling the author's presumable definition of "American" emerged. If he means "White American", then sure, but then the statement is so tautological as to say nothing ("my favoured grouping is defined in such a way that Nigerians can never join").
I don't want to comment on the viability of an European ethnostate or how its supporters are hypocrites by not actually allowing those who don't wish to form part of it to have to move.
However, as someone who is pro-separatism, I would like to to say that the quote above reeks of being a too correct argument. If there's a problem with the people inside a territory not being able to leave, then there's still a problem with that territory itself being part of another larger territory; that means you're left with two choices to solve to conundrum, either the individual is the maximal sovereign unit and there isn't a state at all (anarchism) or you have a one-world government that everyone is stuck with and that's it.
In order to defend the nation state just as it is by saying it's not fair for some to leave the unit and others can't, but without advocating either of the two options above, it seems like you would like you would have to make the case that nation states just like they're now are the result of natural political/territorial/demographical processes, and people have to suck it up or move to another country if they don't like it. I don't deny that plays a role; however, from my (admittedly not deeply researched point of view) history seems to show there's quite some degree of violence behind their creation instead, to say the least.
At the end of the day, you're always going to have people unhappy with the social experiment they were handed, so that practical problem doesn't go away with decentralization but I think it's better at solving it; more sovereign units with less territories makes it easier for both un-popular social experiments but desired by a passionate minority to prop up, and to remove oneself from them .
More options
Context Copy link
Probably, the colonists of the 13 colonies which founded the United States of America, and their descendants. You know, the same thing they meant when they founded the country, and what they literally enshrined in the founding document.
I respect this argument, but it also means that America has been dead for 150 years by now.
1861 + 150 = 2011, the math checks out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you want to practice blind allegiance to a sacred document, go to a church/mosque/synagogue. That is no way to run a country.
It is literally the way to run a country, specifically this country in question, considering every single officer pledges to uphold and defend said sacred document prior to and as a condition of serving as an officer.
They don't make you swear an oath for show.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link