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 -
At a certain point such low pay relative to perceived risk results in no one wanting the job. If your paramilitary members (which, make no mistake, is what these particular cops are) have to risk that for every criminal/enemy combatant they kill as part of their job, they're risking sociofinancial execution, it better be paying ludicrous sums. That sum can be social wealth, that can be financial wealth, or they can be a mix (exhibit A: veteran's discount), but they must be paid regardless.
Progressives can never pay them properly because their preferred version of the paramilitary/police are the criminals that the paramilitary is supposed to be shooting, and their core revealed preference is that they just want to force men [and increasingly, the women who work like men] to labor and risk for free (just like Traditionalists reveal preference for free female childbirth and risk) which means they're incapable of fixing that.
Liberalism was that process, but we are unwilling or unable to afford it any more (which resulted in people being able to claw for more power, and ripped it apart in the process).
Replacing gynosupremacy (current regime) with androsupremacy (ancien regime) is known to fix a security problem in the short term (which is why the Traditionalists feel, correctly, that they can fix this by "retvrning") but at the cost of everything above Security on Maslow's hirerarchy (which stops being a problem when the average man is priced out of everything above it anyway).
So yes, that means that the rough men will use the fact everyone else requires their protection to angle for more power (or must become rough men themselves, which is a victory for the rough men). If the ruling party is unable or unwilling to negotiate they get Battle of Baghdad'd (and the soldiers protesting here is a nano-scale version of that) as the soldiers throw down their tools and cheer for the Taliban... because the Taliban will give those men the power over women that the former society could or would not and every soldier or potential soldier knew it.
I think they probably cared less about power over women and more about power over their abusers. Ending the practice of bacha bazi was a prominent selling point for the Taliban the last two times it took power in Afghanistan. Maybe we should have considered not covering up such practices by our "allies", but ensuring first-world LGBT people aren't smeared as pedophiles is apparently more important than preventing child sexual abuse.
[Refinement: "power over women" -> "power over abusers, most of whom happen to either be women, or are acting womanly".]
Interesting that the "right-wing" is slowly rediscovering that this is how they need to couch their messaging (and then refusing to back down when pressed, and Trump will be the model for this going forward). Liberalism is a counterbalance against progressivism just like it was against traditionalism, and the progressives are only liberals in the "continue the revolution against traditionalism" sense, not the "continue the revolution against traditionalists" (which is why they're so occupied with fighting a strawman that no longer exists while becoming indistinguishable from the traditionalist tendencies that were the reason liberals opposed them in the first place).
But what happens when it is mostly women/progressives carrying out the abuse? Well...
The "global elite satanist pedophile" people have correctly identified that if you're in power, you get to sexually abuse young men with impunity. The specifics look a little different when women do it but "we will take away your ability to develop the things that make you sexually attractive" (either by raping/molesting you directly, or contributing to the cultural effort to
chemically castrate you and give you breasts insteadexpress your inner herbivore man where you hide under your bed in fear of offending a woman) is the general form of what that sexual abuse looks like regardless of whether it's a man or a woman doing either of those things, regardless of whether they think in the moment it's abuse or not (as you know). And the problem is that, because liberal men and women can and will use different functions to compute sexual attraction than normal people, but don't understand that they're doing that, they won't anticipate that their views on what makes the opposite sex attractive (if they even see it that way) is destructive when applied outside of that "orientation"- they can't defend against progressives because they don't know they need to defend against them.Note that this is specifically forced feminization/passivization [in the traditional straight sex sense, where your psyche is built on men dominate, women submit] (and note that abuse victims tend to become hyper-female as a rationalization/result of the abuse, and that's true for boys as well as girls). Feminization that isn't forced is... something different, but can look the same way under certain circumstances (especially in all-male environments, like boarding schools [Eton is famous for this] and prisons) or if you're not aware/don't care they're distinct (most commonly for religious reasons).
Also, forced masculinization can be accomplished (Stanford Prison Experiment guards, Khmer Rouge putting children in charge of labor camps, royal families), it just isn't done because making more dominant individuals is not generally to the benefit of those with the power so we don't have good data on what happens. [I suspect the Soviet "strong woman, basically a man" meme is a little more than just a meme in this direction, but I don't have data to back that up; I'm also not convinced it's the cause of most FTM transitions as distinct from its standard social contagion effects.]
The Westerners that are in power consider the institutional and cultural abuse of boys/young men to have neutral-to-positive moral valence (see above). I think the clearer examples of boy-raping are certainly things that a government would cover up for the same reasons the Church did- that it would allow their legitimacy to be questioned- more than it is an attempt to protect the LGBT movement (who don't really have to care about being called pedophiles as they now possess the social privilege the Church used to have).
Uhh, you know that the people doing Bacha Bazi were something that rounds to 0% female?
I think that's besides @ThisIsSin's point, if I am reading correctly (the diction is a little dense).
Bacha Bazi was 100% about forced feminization in a culture that had (has) a lot of difficulty creating non-destructive ways for men to express sexual needs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Given the very large number of liberals who exist in modern Western countries, maybe they’re not as “abnormal” as you think they are? Your idea of what constitutes “normal” has to be open to revision in the face of new empirical evidence. Perhaps you need to take seriously the idea that these patterns of behavior were always a latent potential in humanity, rather than an aberration that has been imposed by force from the outside?
I’ve written a lot here before about what a wakeup Covid was for me, regarding facts about human nature - it’s a convenient example to return to. I didn’t want to believe that total mass capitulation to any and all restrictions to stave off a flu was “normal” for most people. But I was forced to admit, through the weight of sheer statistics, that they were the normal ones, and I was the abnormal one.
More options
Context Copy link
Bacha bazi is machismo-based homosexuality and exists in a very different cultural context to western gayness-based homosexuality. Machismo-based homosexuality is a much more common pattern over time and space (from ancient Athens to US prisons) with varying degrees of consensuality on the part of the boi, but the key point of commonality is that it does not consider buggering a man to be womanly, only allowing yourself to be buggered.
You are trying to map a conflict going on in the post-Christian west to a pre-Abrahamic conflict going on in Afghanistan. Before the spread of Abrahamic religion, machismo-based homosexuality was the default. The Levitical prohibition on men having sex with men (which is reiterated in the New Testament and the Quaran) is very obviously a response to sexual practices that were actually happening (and probably happening licitly - hence the discussions about male temple prostitutes when modern argue about what the prohibition means) around the time and place where it was written. As far as I am aware, it is the first time an authority condemns the man who buggers (rather than the man who allows himself to be buggered) as a sexual deviant.
FWIW, the issues around bacha bazi are one of the many arguments for why Pashtun Afghanistan is so backward that the Taliban is a genuine improvement, and given that the west has lost the social technology to bring societies up from goatfucking to medievalism we should let someone who still has it rule there. The middle-class Kabulites who appear in all the famous "before" photos were probably an artifact of Soviet rule, and mostly managed to bug out anyway. (There also just weren't that many of them)
You're missing the point slightly, but perhaps I didn't make it clear enough.
In Afghanistan, most of the abusive people are men, and follow male patterns of abuse. Men who are tired of this literally threw their guns down [such an event being the topic of the thread] and let the men who had a better way in.
In the West, most of the abusive people are women, and follow female patterns of abuse. (Most people don't know what they are, especially when the topic is specifically child abuse, so I figured I'd elaborate- "charge the soldier for doing his job because the enemy failed a paper-bag test" is similar abuse along those lines.) Men who are tired of this literally threw their guns down [event topic] and let the negative consequences occur (there are no men who have a better way willing or able to conquer Western countries so this is the best they have).
That consideration is biologically hardcoded. Forced feminization/passivization subtly breaks down men; doesn't matter if it's an individual man directly buggering you short-term or a group of woman collectively buggering you long-term. (Of course, you have to get to understand 'women can bugger men' first, and most people can't do that for other biologically-hardcoded reasons because never in the history of humanity outside of the last 60 years or so has that ever been possible.)
It may be hardcoded, but the point I was making is that Abrahamic religion considers both buggering a man and allowing yourselves to be buggered to be womanly, or at least sufficiently deviant that a sodomite isn't a real man. If machismo-based homosexuality is hardcoded, then Abrahamic religion has successfully overcome a hardcoded belief, to the benefit of humanity.
On the substantive point, I think the crux of our disagreement is that you see the problem as too much female authority (young men being figuratively buggered by teachers and social workers) whereas I see it as the absence of positive male authority (young men growing up without the kind of authority figure that it is possible for them to respect in the way that men need to respect authority). In the absence of either kind of authority what you actually get is the kind of young man for whom buggeration (or at least judicial rhaphanidosis) would be an improvement.
Thanks for the new word. I guess.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can you clarify what you mean by this? The overwhelming majority of violent criminals (including rapists) are men. The overwhelming majority of people who participate in violent political unrest (e.g. the CHAZ in Seattle) are men.
When it comes to say, the architects of corporate wokeness, or deep state NWO bureaucrats, there are more women among their ranks, but also still plenty of men.
Yeah, that one threw me off too. The closest I can imagine is that women enforce social conformity on men and women both, and abusive female personalities get a free pass in a lot of communities.
Lots of women are...pointlessly abusive? Men are usually getting something vaugely quantifiable from it it.
I'm reaching.
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 seems more likely that we wanted to destroy the Taliban because they harbored Osama Bin Laden after 9/11; cobbled together a messy coalition of liberals, tribal traditionalists, and the plain corrupt; and then looked the other way for the sake of maintaining coalition politics than it is we supported child rape at the behest of domestic LGBT politics.
Yes and no. Not raising a stink about it when we encountered it was "maintaining coalition politics". Classifying the investigation into the practice and the resulting report on it was for domestic politics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Progressives do not want criminals to turn into the law enforcement mechanism because progressives do not believe crime is real in the first place. Or at least progressives have convinced themselves that crime isnt real, hence the logical next step of abolishing law enforcement.
Self actualization for progressives is contingent on having an oppressive force to actively resist, because their set worldview is already perfect and does not require convincing externals. Said oppressive force must be manifestly engaging in oppression, and so law enforcement against criminal minorities is coopted by progressives to be proof of their worldviews conception. People being criminal assholes isn't because they are shitheads, its because they are systematically oppressed by the big bad state.
In the progressive conception there is never any need for law enforcement labor, and it is impossible for minorities to commit crime when there is no oppressive force incentivizing them to do so. Manifest failures like Christiania, CHAZ, East Hastings, Kensington, etc etc are simply proof of how oppression is so systemic that criminal minorities absorb the culture of white oppressors to oppress themselves.
The labor of law enforcement is false labor for the progressive. It was never needed, and so should never be compensated. Ironically, law enforcement is required for the progressive worldview to continue existing. Without law enforcement, progressives have no manifestation of the oppressive structure and no external force blameable for progressive failures. The progressive worldview requires law enforcement to exist more than it wants it to be abolished, because if law enforcement is gone the progressive ideas have to stand on their own, and deep down all progressives know their pet minorities will find it easier to scalp defenseless dangerhairs than armed magasuburbs.
Everyone loves a nice hot dump on progressives. It's practically the easy-mode for scoring upvotes.
You still need to actually be making an argument or saying something factual and defensible. This post is just pure boo-lighting with a bunch of uncharitable straw men. Do you think any progressive would agree with your characterization of what they believe and what their real motives are? It's one thing to argue that "This is the end result of their policies," it's another to argue "Actually, progressives are all zombie idiots with a worldview that says crime doesn't exist and minorities only ever do bad things because they are oppressed."
If this was a one-off, I'd chide you for weakmanning and ask you to put more effort into your inveighing against progressives in the future. But this isn't a one-off. You have a long, bad history of this sort of post, and being told to stop it.
You actually have a couple of notes to the effect of "last warning, permaban next time." Somehow you skated in the past, and then you went and earned a couple of AAQCs.
You seem to be able to post interesting things when you aren't choking on bile about your outgroup. We would like you to focus on your strengths. By that I do not mean "entertaining rants about how your outgroup is pure stupid evil."
Banned for 2 weeks, and next time will be a permaban.
Since the poster is banned and thus cannot respond, I'll ask the question here: what failures in East Hastings and Kensington is he(?) referring to? What is the significance of these places, wherever they are?
Hastings is a street in Vancouver that at one time (60s-ish) was core shopping district, but for something like 30 years has been a centre for drug addled homelessness, prostitution, open sales of drugs and stolen goods, plus assorted crazies. (the major decline was contemporaneous with the shutdown of a large mental hospital, fancy that)
This:
https://preview.redd.it/p1658ejufvp41.jpg?width=640&auto=webp&s=58cb9c9f1e4253daa55db438873c181ec7797b15
vs this:
https://www.vmcdn.ca/f/files/via/import/2019/08/19141502_dtes8-min.jpg;w=960
I assume this is what he's talking about; Kensington is a street in Toronto that used to be kind of... bohemian and funky but has maybe gone the same way? I don't know, I don't care about Toronto at all.
But there are similar areas in all the West Coast Cities -- substitute "Tenderloin" if you are in SF or "Skid Row" in LA. (although I think Skid Row has maybe always been bad? "Skid Row" in Vancouver is now full of gentrified brew-pubs and lofts, IDK)
Which was in the vicinity, I suppose.
No, it was in a neighbouring borough as it happens -- but serviced the whole province for serious cases AFAICR.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They probably mean Kensington in Philadelphia, which looks roughly like the aftermath of a zombie movie.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
While I agree with the ban, progressives have frequently openly used this guy's characterization of what they believe as rallying slogans.
I mean, sure, hypocrisy is the only modern sin, being two faced is feature-not-bug, nobody actually believes what they say, etc. but his argument's pretty self-evident. He's saying that the (unspoken: white, neoliberal) progressive's opinions on policing through force can only exist in a gated community or bubble where (non white-collar) crime is non-visible and a fargroup concern.
What am I supposed to take away from this other than that "Defund the police!" people are either lying liars or burying their heads in the sand so hard that they're prospecting for lithium? I have to frequently express to Americans that in most of the rest of the world when people are openly telling them what they believe, their goals and aims, they should actually listen; "river to the sea" is one such recent example. When people say they want sharia law, they really want sharia law.
More options
Context Copy link
The idea that crime is fake and that societal factors explain all observable group differences is stock standard progressive thought, actively taught in sociology departments all around the country. I was personally taught this in a university sociology class, and in a criminology class(at the same university).
I am curious, what, other than oppression, would a progressive accept as an explanation for why minorities do bad things? At the population level, at the national level, what other explanation is even compatible with progressive ideas? You could argue culture, but of course a criminal culture is a natural response to an oppressive society. You could argue socio economic factors, but again you are going to very quickly run into the root cause for those difference, oppression. When I brought up the crime-lead theory in my sociology class, my professor countered with, 'and why did certain groups have to live in the areas of high lead concentration?? tut tut tut'. It's oppression all the way down.
Sure, they might not be as frank as the original poster, but the underlying belief structure obviously leads to the same conclusion.
I feel like one of us must be WILDLY failing the ideological Turing test, for you to call this a 'zombie idiot' view.
It's you. I know lots of progressives. Exactly zero of them believe that literally no minorities would ever commit crimes if not for oppression, or that crime doesn't exist.
I'm not going to debate progressive criminal theory because I don't subscribe to it, but I'm pretty sure even AOC would not say there would be zero crime if the economy were better. If you cannot steelman their perspective in a way they themselves would agree is what they believe (not "this is what your beliefs lead to" but "this is what you literally believe") then you are weak manning, and the OP was being obnoxious about it and has a long history of being obnoxious.
From Emile DeWeaver at the Brennan Center for Justice: "Crime, the Myth":
…
…
…
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think anyone is claiming literally that. It's the difference in criminality between various groups that is 100% ascribed to oppression. Not genes, not culture, only socioeconomic inequity and mental trauma that both stem from oppression are the reason why some groups commit more crimes than others. It's the duty of the privileged groups to compensate oppressed groups by eliminating all trauma triggers and redistributing status and equity in their favor.
I don't think what I've written is a strawman or a weakman of the progressive views on crime.
More options
Context Copy link
I guess this needs clarification, but when I said 'at the population level, at the national level' I was trying to preclude the 'literally zero' type objection. I did not assume that a 'most' was all the OP needed to fix their post, since you called it a 'zombie idiot' idea, which suggested a fair deal of distance from a directionally or mostly correct idea (which it seems to be, to me).
I would also really love an answer the question in my post. At the population level, what other cause, that does not reduce down to oppression, is an acceptable progressive explanation for why minorities do bad things? Full disclosure, I honestly don't even know what your answer could be. I literally can't think of one. My understanding is that, 'oppressive society' and 'genetics' covers 100% of the total possible causal factors for the question "why minorities do bad things", with 'oppressive society' containing all of the factors that a progressive would view as acceptable. Again, to me, the view expressed in the OP is stock standard progressive ideation presented in an unfavorable way.
"Directionally correct" is fine. "Expressed in an unfavorable" (meaning uncharitable and inflammatory and weakmanned) way is not. Just saying "Progressives believe all crime is caused by poverty and oppression" would be okay. (Though most progressives don't literally believe there would be zero criminals without poverty and oppression.) But the OP said a lot more than that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Now you are engaging in a strawman of the other poster. I don’t take the hyperbole to mean that literal progressives believe there are zero criminal assholes. Instead, I think progs genuinely believe that the vast majority of criminals are just good people for whom the systems they are in led them astray. That is, criminals are a fault of society; not a blight on society.
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
I'm not convinced that this kind of gender-based class conflict thinking is a feature of rough men. It seems like something spontaneously generated in teenaged girls and gay men, which might explain why cultural marxists are so into female extended adolescence and LBGT. But the Taliban's views on women were not the reason for its popularity among the Afghani army(see: Taliban promises to moderate its treatment of women), Islam was(well that and the incompetence and corruption of the US-backed government).
I think the primary issue was all the buggery and child rape going on amongst the anti-Taliban forces and the new de-Talibanized Afghan Army. The Taliban's founder started his political career hanging child rapists from the gun barrel of a tank, according to legend.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link