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 -
Not quite. Falangists were clerical fascists. Mere radical religious nationalism is not. Lest we have to call every single European regime before the French Revolution fascist. Which is not even true under the Marxist lens.
The hard to draw line is for Integralism, which has totalitarian mass politics and hangs out just on the frontier between fascism and other ultranationalisms. I think it depends on the implementation for that one.
But mere traditional nationalist monarchism? That's not clerical fascism.
I think quite a bit of what is said about Japan being fascist is abuse of analogy for lack of precise understanding by Europeans, frankly.
The wikipedia article you linked mentions this:
Japanese imperialism was a lot more like the IInd Reich than the IIIrd. I don't really think it makes sense to analyze it under the lens of fascism, precisely because the ideological component is quite different.
Anyone who refuses to turn their brain off at the mention of Boomer anathema. The numbers are growing every day.
You yourself seem to still live in this world where "Nazi" means anything. But it is nearly done. And when it is, understanding history beyond such clichés will be more valuable than the ability to manipulate a defunct frame. Because if you do you're able to reconstruct a new narrative.
What people miss about Lindsay's schizo rants is that he's actually right. Liberalism is a dead doctrine and the right is in fact memetically summoning something new out of its failure. I wish that people would stop themselves from laughing at the man driven mad by reading too much critical theory and actually give his claims as charitable a reading as they give, say, Nick Land. Lindsay's true failing is lamenting this, as a man who desires everything to be based on logic and reason he can't do anything else. But reason and logic alone brought us into this mess. Something easy to miss for someone who fought on their side against krits for so long.
Now the real reason to be weary of fascism under such auspices (and therefore to accurately identify it) is that it contains the worst parts of modernity alongside an unrestrained rejection of reason. This is what led to its failure in large parts. Repeating history would be pointless here, so at the least whatever new reaction needs to address its rightward critiques and more likely integrate the leftward ones as well.
Whatever comes needs to transcend the neocon frame. And you can't do it with naive XXth century idealism.
More options
Context Copy link