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 -
I've noticed the alt-right (specifically the Richard Spencer wing) is blaming Christianity for cucking Whites and making them accept non-whites in their country. To me this isn't even close to being true and can be dismissed outright as nonsense.
We know from genetics that modern Europeans separated from sub saharan African 30 to 40 thousand years ago. We also know that Western Europeans didn't have any meaningful contact with Blacks until the 15th century when Portugal "discovered" West Africa during the Age of Exploration. By accepting this, we can see that Western Europe has had over 500 years of contact with Blacks.
I've specifically been looking into England, but the same is true for other nations. The highest count of non-whites I can find on Google Scholar recently is 2.6% in 1951. Interestingly, 2.2% of those 2.6% were first generation immigrants. This is by far the highest I've seen with other estimates putting it close to 99%.
So at this point, we have pretty clear data that when Europe was Christian (and America), there was almost 0 non-white immigration to Europe. We also know places like France put in racist laws like Code Noir that explicitly put Whites at the top of the social hierarchy.
When we look at when this changed, it was really the 1960's. But at this point, Christianity was starting to decline due to science and especially Darwin (and in my opinion became obviously not true). The increased immigration and anti-racist views correlates with Christianity's decline, so the idea that Christianity having everyone's soul being equal can be equally dismissed. In fact, I would argue the pro non-white immigration came from the secular left or if you want to argue it's the right neoliberalism. I see zero evidence of this that Richard Spencer and his allies argue to be true. In fact, the evidence shows the complete opposite.
Blaming progressivism, including European progressives and fellow travelers and influence of certain non Europeans and their activist movements (such as black activist movements and Jewish activist movements and the first included plenty of the later) for "cucking" Europeans is correct but it was influenced by versions of Christianity. Even though atheistic ideology has been even more influential. I do think Judaism, as in religious Judaism gets too little blame, not only for the direct influence of Jews, but also in the way Christianity is said to resemble such far left movements, well that applies even more for Judaism. Of course it applies especially to the Jews with their religion and their understanding that says they never didn't do nothing wrong, were oppressed by the evil other, but they will have their revenge and rule as they deserve. Add into that some unviersalism about how they are in the mission to heal the world and acting for universal justice.
The influence of this kind of perspective in progressive identity grievance movements in general, both of ethnic groups, and of groups like women, LGBT, etc, is of course notable. There is of course progressive Judaism, and the sizable influence of actual Jews, but the actual Jewish grievance perspective is influential even where no Jews can be found, but people who have absorbed this ideology. Exactly in the way people claim non Christians ideologically share elements with Christianity. Indeed, progressive Christianity in the 20th century has obviously been influenced by progressive Judaism.
And just like there has been a far left Jewish tradition, we even had a direct history of Christian radicals going even before 20th century, even if they weren't the dominant strain in Christianity. Their influence in the USA did play its role. There is a difference of course with the Jewish perspective which isn't pathologically altruist, and the European Christian progressive perspective which is against its own demographic, but I do think Black Christianity is much closer to the Jewish perspective where it is a grievance movement that admits no wrong for its own, and seeks more for its group under the framing of universal justice. Although progressive Judaism which is very influential and Black Christianity might be willing to make some intersectional compromises for similar groups, but not for the common outgroup.
So, yes the secular left, including secular leftists who are pro markets have been very influential, but there have been religious influences there. What is called secular, often carries plenty of religious dna. There is also a significant anti-Christian and anticlerical tradition.
Since official Christianity through modernity includes the progressive version though, you can't really pretend that version of Christianity isn't pro subservient/self hating Europeans. It isn't all modern Christianity, but it does exist. Of course, if one examines atheists, they tend to share more the progressive and pathologically altruist vision, so I wouldn't focus on all Christians as the demographic to blame. Especially since anti-Christianity has been an aspect of progressive movements as well. Simultaneously, part of the progressive agenda, has been to corrupt Christianity and have progressivism wear it as a skinsuit.
My view is that progressive Christianity does not derive as the natural telos of Christianity, however Christianity is more universalist than certain other religions, but the end can be something more moderate, like historical Christianity was.
Since, I don't think being maximally self-centered as a group is good, nor pathologically altruist is good, usually civilizations more in the sweet spot were more Christian than today. But it does matter what kind of Christianity you got. If your goal is to follow the goal I mentioned, pathologically altruist Christianity is worse for a civilization than a more secular approach that isn't pathologically altruist. So, I don't think the terminal goal should be "Christianity only", but there ought to be tolerance between those Christians and not Christians who aren't for the agenda to destroy european civilization and its people.
The two have different telos.
The goal of progressivism, in its maximalist form, is the creation of utopia on earth by human hands. It posits that not only is this possible, but that the 'long arc of history' is driven towards such ends. In its minimalist form, it attempts to improve the lot of all human beings.
Christianity emphasizes the immortal soul and considers this corrupted earth to be on a downward slide towards depravity and godlessness. Paradise is not possible outside the spiritual domain and the material world is considered transitory. In its minimalist form, it encourages the actions of its followers to mimic Christ in preparation for the next world.
This isn't really true. Christianity expects the rejuvenation and perfection of the physical world after the Second Coming and the Resurrection. Progressivism is a secularized millennarianism. It's very Christian. What you're describing is more Gnostic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link