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 -
Let’s say the resident school controversy was true. As best I can make out the logic, it is:
Europeans came here and took land from the native population.
Natives suffered as a result.
As a descendent of those Europeans, I am morally responsible.
Therefore it is a good thing if a new population comes here and harms the current natives (ie me).
It seems quite odd to me. First, it assumes generational guilt. And if that is true, then maybe the original natives “deserved” it. It also implies the new population while enacting justice is committing a wrong. Very confusing.
Well, if we did this to the Indians, it's only fair that the Indians get to do it to us.
More seriously, I think that especially among young Canadians, there is a sense that progressive policies have failed. As I write this, I'm walking by a sign advertising our local progressive party (The NDP). The sign sits in front of a number of tents containing the homeless (or "unhoused people"). 9 years ago, when I moved into this neighborhood, it was still not a good neighborhood, but there weren't visible crack pipes, dirty needles, or homeless people shrieking profanities all through the night. The BC NDP decriminalizing drugs has visibly led to an explosion in the homeless population and general appearance of decay.
I live in a rent controlled building. My rent is around $1200 CAD monthly, compared to what would be around $2700 CAD if I were to move in today. The progressive party has failed at keeping life affordable for the middle class (and their federal counterparts literally voted to keep increasing demand on housing.)
What I think has happened is that the youth have reached a point where it is literally impossible to survive with the progressive policies. The insulation that the standard progressive has against the negative repercussions of their policies has been worn away, and when they cry uncle, the government they elected doubles down on the policies hurting them.
It's easy to be progressive when it just means being nice. It's much harder when it means that you rent a tiny shoebox for the rest of your life, and can't start a family, or travel, or do anything but eck out an existence for the corporate overlords the progressives swear they opposed, but who somehow keep doing better and better. And all the while, the government keeps upping taxes, but somehow they're all gone by the time you're supposed to see them.
More options
Context Copy link
It’s quite interesting. In New Zealand, the leader of the anti-immigration party is a Maori. But Māori likely have more influence in New Zealand than the first nations do in Canada.
More options
Context Copy link
Adding to the confusion, only the guilt is transmitted forward through time. For some reason, none of the credit for building a first world country follows.
The same people saying "You must feel bad for the horrible things your ancestors did" will not even skip a beat before saying "you can't feel pride for the great things your ancestors achieved." So conveniently you can't assume any credit for creating a successful nation, but you get to feel blame for what happened to any minorities or natives who suffered during its creation, just in case you thought those two factors might balance out the ledger.
I am utterly unclear as to the mechanism that allows blame to propagate forward through time and generations but doesn't allow credit and pride to propagate as well.
Some of them hate whites, some of them are aware of the internal tension, and some of them see a sort of collective guilt that needs to be repaired by incorporating minorities into the broader structure of society.
ETA: there's also some revisionist pseudohistory about how blacks/natives/whatever really built the nice societies in question, but I don't think it's the dominant strain of thought.
More options
Context Copy link
It's not about a mechanism. It's bullshit wordcelry.
The entire thing exists to harm what's left of the culture of your people and to deprive you of power. That was explicitly stated by the people who made it up, except nobody bothers to read marxist books but people paid to do so or lunatics. Trying to tease about the internal consistency of an ideology seeking your dispossession is just crazy.
Rufo's book "America's Cultural Revolution" goes about the genesis of that bullshit in excruciating, mind numbing details, it's also widely available.
More options
Context Copy link
I feel like Canadians used to be very smug about being a first world nation. America with +40% niceness and +20% multiculturalism basically.
I don't know what happened. My social circle has narrowed in terms of ethnic Anglo/native-born Canadians outside of a few at work and my media diet is extremely Americanized (and hyper-guilt driven) so maybe I don't see it as much (or people really are just tired after the recent migrant wave). On the other hand that may be true of Canadians themselves, which might explain the increased pessimism. Or whatever common factor drove the hope-and-change era around the time I arrived in both countries is just done everyone is now more pessimistic.
Other countries didn't succeed in becoming first world nations because Canada/America/the West's success is based on their exploitation. Simple.
Doesn't really work when you can see how Japan recover from nukes and occupation, or Singapore vaulting to first World status and becoming a beacon of civilization, with little apparent exploitation of other nations.
Works even less when you notice that places like Rhodesia and South America were pretty much first-world or close second-world countries right up until the Western influence withdrew.
I said it was simple, not that you would find it credible. But that's the argument.
You start giving counter-examples and you'll hear about Haiti's reparations, slaves building America, coups in LatAm, how India had X% of the world's GDP before Britain looted it, bad borders in Africa and the ME, sanctions against Zimbabwe meanwhile honorary white Japan (which was spared colonialism - somehow) was needed as a bulwark against the Soviets and so was treated relatively well. They have explanations, it's just a matter of how much you think they're cope (I've swung over to the "cope" side but I change most of my opinions an average of every eight years and I'm in the "converted zealot" stage and it's really not helpful for digging out nuance.)
It may not hold up but it's the closest thing to a coherent justification for the asymmetry I've seen.
You asked for some theory that would allow one and not the other, not just an explanation of nakedly self-serving behavior. I doubt anyone needs to hear "my opponents want me to believe things that help them and to avoid things that don't" from me.
No, I get that.
Its just every epicycle they have to add makes it less credible to me.
It is one thing to point to some guy who inherited wealth built on the backs of actual slaves or exploitation, and say that maybe he doesn't deserve everything he has.
Quite another to point at somebody who just happened to be born into a civilization that was built in part on the back of slaves and through exploitation of weaker neighbors, and claim that just because his ancestors bled, died, and labored to build a nation so nice that everybody wants to move there he doesn't get to be proud of himself... and he also should feel guilt for all the people that were exploited to build the nation (which includes his ancestors, mind!).
I've said it elsewhere, the lesson of politics since about 2010 is "identity politics and racial grievances are a great way to get others to do what you want and give you their stuff."
Of course the end state of this is leftists revolting against nature. It always is. Some nations were bequeathed huge stores of natural bounty, some were not, and this determined their future courses to some huge degree. The only way to correct for this is to move that natural bounty around until every place on earth can obtain some kind of parity.
More options
Context Copy link
When the threat of colonization became apparent, they built themselves up into a modern state.
Which itself is a rather good refutation of the nonsense theories about how the plight of the Third World is all due to the First World, but you'll never get anyone who believes it to change their mind.
Reading the actual history of the Meiji restoration, it seems to have been dependent on the samurai class producing vast numbers of geniuses engaged in pointless bureaucracy they could be pulled off of without anyone noticing. It would be like the Hasidim deciding collectively, overnight, that they need to build an industrial economy and so their best and brightest have to be moved off of torah study to learn chip design or whatever.
Most colonized societies didn't have anywhere near the ability to do this. If we assume the samurai class had the same IQ advantage over the commoners that college graduates do over the hoi polloi in the USA(probably an underestimate) we're looking at a class of people with an average IQ similar to Ashkenazi Jews, who had quite literally nothing to do so they were given sinecures commanding vast resources with enforcing social conservatism as their only responsibility, and a single point of authority to rally around when it was apparent times needed to change, and a pre-existing tradition of employing literal geniuses in copying western technology. Those ingredients were rare in isolation; together they existed only in Japan.
Why do you assume an Iq advantage for samurai? It seems more likely to be reversed in class terms of we assume the class system existed long enough to have a breeding effect.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is honestly a weird self hatred
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link