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 -
Rebellions only really occur when conditions improve. In the US, this wasn't a violent process (and doesn't tend to be- after all, the US is a far richer country); but if you were a man coming of age from 1945 to 1973 you enjoyed an utterly massive expansion in your civil rights [especially relative to women]- and that's because, socioeconomically, men were in such demand that women were completely unable to say no to whatever men wanted.
So you got a regulatory state [of society, not necessarily of government; remember, the 1920s were so woke that not only does the 18th Amendment exist, it was enacted without universal sufferage] that was much weaker than in the 1920s and 30s- free love isn't possible without conditions like this. Freedom only increases so long as society has a deficit of men; when it has a deficit of women, in the 1920s as now, oppression increases.
(And it is important to note that men naturally prosper in free conditions in the same way women prosper in oppressive conditions- it simply aligns with their biological interests. The distaff counterpart of catcalling men is quite literally "hello, human resources". It's also important to note that, while I call that 'oppressive', that is the male perspective of it; so if you truly want to be neutral it's not 'oppression' so much as 'privileging women above men', where freedom is the opposite. Oppressive societies are no less fragile than free ones.)
The problem with bust times is that men (and women who are good enough to be men) are in oversupply, so as a result their socioeconomic wages go down and conditions get continually worse for them. And the de-liberalization of the 1990s through today is part and parcel of that, and the entire point of mass immigration is to consolidate that (just like it was in 1920, for that matter!)- the men of that age were all too busy making money to see that failure to treat the communists/immigrationists to free helicopter rides was going to end badly for their children, but any man would do the same in that position. And after all, what's the harm of allowing enemy speech? It's not like it's ever going to take over.
You're thinking of revolutions. That's what Tocqueville's paradox is about.
There's plenty of rebellions under worsening conditions. People who are getting fucked over never overthrow their ruling elite on their own, but they do often tend to be unruly and use the only real language of the masses: widespread ineffectual violence and vandalism.
Plenty of riots to go around, plenty more nihilistic terror to come.
Any aspiring dictator knows wanton violence is the siren song of the crowd lusting for better leadership. But the crowd never seizes power for herself.
This is not true, oppressive societies are a lot more fragile. You only need to take out the elite. And you have no shortage of potential allies. Ask Cuauhtémoc. Ask Saddam. Ask Mussolini.
The history of the world is full of god emperors whose rule is unquestionable until the day someone with a bigger stick comes about and the locals cheer the new management.
A tyrant inspires no loyalty. And they need the boys to die in their wars.
I'll happily give up my seat. No Chinaman ever called me an incel.
My number one domestic policy goal is to make sure they have no willing soldiers.
I'm not as convinced, but I'm also thinking about oppressive societies that emerge from the people rather than being imposed top-down.
Top-down oppression is fragile (especially because it tends to be obviously self-enriching, or rather, it becomes fragile when it can be reasonably perceived as self-enriching), but bottom-up oppression isn't, to the point that it's very hard to call it out. For instance, safetyism in the West is very much oppression, but everyone who perpetrates it does so with the approval of its own conscience. There's no Czar of Safety and therefore the problem is much more difficult to root out because it exists within every man, woman, and child; the senate and people of the US can't just send the 101st Airborne to topple racism for the same reason they can't send them to remove BLM rioters.
The only way to deal with bottom-up oppression is for an opposing nation (or reality) to throw so many bags of money at the people that they can start clearing the self-enriching parts of themselves away, while ensuring that no top-down version of that oppression arises. Contrast post-WW2 Axis nations with modern MENA; the US can blow up a good chunk of it in the name of feminism but the people remain in opposition to that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link